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

Papermate2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82179874#Comment_82179874

Here is a draft for the main body of the MP letter. It is built on significant documentary evidence and correspondence I’ve gathered directly from the key players involved. Every statement in this draft is highly accurate and backed by physical, provable evidence (including recent FOI disclosures).

@Coupon-mad , I’d love to get your thoughts on this angle and the specific points raised.

If the community agrees with this approach, I can top and tail it with the necessary placeholders (sender's name, full address, and MP details) so it is a complete, ready-to-send template for everyone to use.

I am urging you to lay or support a Prayer Motion to annul the Private Parking Code of Practice Statutory Instrument. In its current form, this legislation has completely acquiesced to all of the private parking industry's wishes. If this framework becomes law, you can expect 20 million annual Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) to be issued against motorists, with absolutely no operators ever facing meaningful sanctions.

I ask you to challenge this Code on six specific, severe grounds:

1. The Legalisation of an Unlawful £70 Fee

The Code retains the £100 maximum parking charge and officially legitimises an arbitrary £70 "debt recovery" add-on fee. The Government’s consultation strategy of kicking the legality of this fee into the long grass is an absolute abomination of consumer justice. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has previously indicated that these £70 add-ons likely breach consumer protection law. By codifying this fee in a Statutory Instrument now, the Government is cementing it permanently. How can any future legal review successfully strike this fee down as unlawful if the Government has already explicitly legalised it? Parliament must not rubber-stamp a practice that its own consumer watchdog considers a breach of consumer rights.

2. Regulatory Capture and Sham Appeals

The new framework fails to dismantle the industry's closed-loop appeals system. Will Hurley, representing the International Parking Community (IPC), sat on the Government’s steering committee and has publicly celebrated the laying of this Code. Under the IPC's current "Independent Appeals Service" (IAS), the system outright refuses to consider driver mitigation or operator Code of Practice breaches. The operational commingling is so blatant that the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI) currently appears content that official correspondence from the IAS "Lead Adjudicator" is actively routed through the email account of Vicky Jarret—who is simultaneously the Head of Compliance for the IPC. The legality of the IAS's ongoing transition under the DMCCA 2024 (now fronted by a £100 shell company) is highly questionable, and formal challenges submitted to both the Government and the CTSI regarding the lawfulness of this setup remain entirely unanswered.

3. The Farce of Self-Regulation and DVLA Oversight Failure

The new Code explicitly relies on the industry to continue managing sanctions against its own members, but this self-regulation is entirely fictitious. Under recent Freedom of Information (FOI) disclosures, the DVLA has formally admitted that the IPC has issued zero sanctions against its members. Furthermore, the DVLA is currently refusing to answer the exact same question regarding the British Parking Association (BPA), having gone completely silent for over 40 days past the statutory FOI deadline. Astonishingly, this same ignored FOI request suggests the DVLA does not even hold the founding accreditation documents for the BPA. The Code completely ignores this catastrophic oversight failure, allowing the industry to police itself while keeping its lucrative access to the DVLA database completely unchecked.

4. Hidden Transition Rules and Broken Promises on Signage

Crucially, the detailed transition rules for implementing this Code are being deliberately withheld and will not be published until after the Code becomes law, bypassing parliamentary scrutiny. The industry’s track record proves they will abuse any transition period. In April of this year, both the BPA and the IPC openly reneged on their previously published commitment to update all non-compliant car park signage by the end of 2026, halting improvements in favour of waiting to see whatever minimum standards the Government might require. Because the Government has acquiesced to almost every industry demand, it is highly likely these hidden rules will grant operators an excessively long transition period to comply. Once the 40-day laying period expires, MPs will have no power to challenge these loopholes, giving the parking industry a massive, unscrutinised grace period to continue exploiting motorists with defective signage under the old, failed system.

5. The Commercialisation of UKAS Certification and Lack of Independent Funding

While the Code introduces UKAS (United Kingdom Accreditation Service) certification as a purported safeguard, the practical mechanism guarantees further regulatory capture. Certification will be carried out by commercial Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) acting as service providers. Because these bodies will be paid directly by the parking operators they assess, they will inevitably monetise the approval process. Operators will simply "shop around" and employ only the CABs that offer lenient audits. Rather than driving up standards, this commercialised certification model creates a race to the bottom. Instead, both certification and the secondary appeals service must be established as government-controlled, unassailable functions. This oversight should be entirely self-funded through a mandatory statutory levy applied to the £2.50 KADOE fee that operators currently pay the DVLA for keeper data. This would instantly remove the industry's financial leverage over their own auditors and appeals bodies at zero cost to the taxpayer.

6. The Inadequate 30-Day Trap and Lack of Operator Penalties

The new Code introduces a highly restrictive rule stating that if a motorist pays a charge, any appeal to reclaim those funds must be made within just 30 days of payment. While framed as a consumer concession, this is a deliberate trap. Vulnerable motorists frequently pay illegitimate charges under extreme duress—simply to stop the harassment of the £70 debt recovery fee and the terrifying threat of court action. If definitive evidence of sharp practice comes to light after this arbitrary 30-day window—such as discovering the site relies on deliberately deceptive entrapment signage, as seen at Lythgoes Lane in Warrington where Euro Parking Services Ltd has brazenly breached the industry's current Code since March 2025—the appeals door slams shut permanently.

This strict cut-off must be abolished. Motorists must retain the right to reclaim extorted funds no matter how far back the incident occurred, in line with standard statutory time limits for fraud and misrepresentation. Furthermore, when a PCN is proven to be the result of deliberate entrapment, the Code must legally compel the operator to refund the charge with added interest and a statutory penalty paid to the motorist. Without this punitive mechanism, the Code provides a permanent, government-sanctioned shield for rogue operators to keep extorted funds with absolute impunity.

Please urgently coordinate with your colleagues to raise a Prayer Motion to annul this Code before the 40-day period expires. It must be sent back to be stripped of the £70 debt recovery fee, the hidden transition rules, and the industry-controlled loopholes that allow unregulated access to the DVLA database—and must instead mandate a reduced £60 maximum parking charge with a mandatory 50% early payment discount.

Coupon-mad

There's more:

• The plan to let individual PPCs to create an internal 'blue badge holders database' for the sole purpose of denying that person (or a known Motability vehicle) future 'reasonable adjustments' is illegal under the EA 2010 and the statutory EHRC Code for Services & Public Functions. A proper 'reasonable adjustment' would be to always cancel any PCN if, on appeal or later complaint/dispute stage, the blue badge of an occupant of the vehicle is shown to demonstrate entitlement to use that bay. Only full cancellation meets the Equality Act 2010 protections because - unlike on-street under local authority rules - these notices are not penalties. For 'cowboy' firms to use contract law to charge a known disabled person for using an accessible bay (meaning they can still sue that motorist for the full amount & costs, if the beleaguered and harassed consumer doesn't act quickly and pay this blink-and you-miss-it £20 bribe to end the pursuit) is fundamentally unjust. Disabled persons would be treated less favourably than other 'permit' holders under this draft Code, and that cannot stand.
• Further and in the alternative: this ludicrous idea to store disabled motorists' data would also amount to illegal 'special category' (health/disability related) data processing under the DUA Act 2025. The ICO can confirm that this harebrained idea is unlawful because the DUAA requires double data justification under both Article 6 and Article 9 of UKGDPR. This double justification is simply not met, given the sole data purpose is to deny future statutory concession or cancellation for disabled people (and only disabled people). This is madness.
• It also ignores the fact that one driver's conduct (an innocent error by 'Motorist A') in not noticing that their or their passenger's blue badge was not clearly displayed on one occasion cannot be used to even temporarily (let alone permanently) 'blacklist' a vehicle or a blue badge holder, because on another occasion it may involve a different driver 'Motorist B' and the contract law position is entirely separate;
• Restricting the statutory Code to only apply to 'relevant land' will create a two tier system. Are the government blind to the obvious repercussions of this disastrous decision? Restricting the Code's scope so narrowly immediately removes tens of thousands of sites from the promised consumer protection, including, but not limited to: Airports including publicly accessible roads, drop off zones, no-stopping zones, Ports, Forestry land, country parks, council 'private land' housing estates and TFL underground stations, all of which remain under statutory control of byelaws or parking authorities, but where private parking firms routinely issue parking charge notices, not byelaws penalties.
• Assuming the DVLA would - as now - not release keeper data to private parking firms without mandatory APA AOS membership and a code of practice, this would see a two-tier system evolve: a statutory Code covering only some private land sites - relevant land only - and the continuation of an unregulated self-serving 'alternative facts/different rules' APA Code for all non-relevant land. The government promised to replace self-regulation in this rogue industry and this daft last minute U-turn reneges on that (even the industry's own Code goes further).
• Whilst the 2019 Act was poorly drafted and as a result only refers to 'relevant land', this did not similarly restrict the last government. As was seen in the 2022 withdrawn code, there is no rational reason why this government could not have produced a similar, far wider scope statutory Code, after all, this is what motorists and MPs were promised. Even if the 2019 Act only covers 'relevant land' due to a drafting error by policymakers who didn't realise this is term is not synonymous with 'private land', a competent government should have the nous and backbone to recognise and eliminate the danger of creating a wholly unintended two-tier system.
• The Government must produce another Code, extended to cover all private land sites operated by any private parking company, including all areas with purported 'no-stopping' or 'no parking' rules and also urgently encompassing private land tolls (a highly alarming cautionary tale is already affecting hundreds of thousands of innocent motorists as a result of the catastrophic 'unpaid toll notice' PCN mimicking rip-off currently playing out at this year for the first time at Warburton Bridge/Manchester Ship Canal - Andy Burnham's neck of the woods - where 1,000 motorists per day are being caught inadvertently. Signage at the toll bridge is seen to be wholly inadequate, ANPR is unchecked and excessive, there is no second stage appeal, no code of practice at all exists to protect motorists and Excel Parking are set to take £37 million per annum from that site alone which it is believed is some three times their usual total annual profits across the whole of E&W).
• Instead, this government have seemingly panicked and narrowed the scope so severely that there will be far less consumer protection on private land than currently exists. Creating two tiers: 'relevant land' (government code applies) and 'non relevant land' plus no-stopping zones' (the Wild West of self regulation continues) will be impossible for motorists to understand and navigate, would significantly reduce consumer protection at tens of thousands of sites and would have the unwanted consequence of parking operators setting up unjustified no parking / no-stopping zones to avoid the statutory Code. The worst parking firms will see an opportunity to redefine what would have been parking charges as 'barrier-less pay later tolls' at high street shops, hospitals, residents' own home parking approach roads, and anywhere else that they can get away with unregulated regimes. This isn't merely problematic, it is absurd and irrational to the point of catastrophe;
• Then there is the invention of letting parking firms double-claim charges 'where the tariff exceeds £60' (no cap is stated for a tariff). This is extremely naive by the government's policy advisers. To double their moneygrabbing, parking firms will be able to put up signs making up any tariff they like, even where sites are currently free, e.g. at high street shops, new signs could now proclaim: "FREE PARKING STRICTLY FOR 2 HOURS. £100 TARIFF IS PAYABLE THEREAFTER". Which would let them pursue the slower shoppers (usually elderly, disabled, delayed, ill or parents with children) for £200 (tariff plus PCN) straight off the bat, disingenuously discounted to an eye-watering £160. With no top ceiling, so the pseudo 'tariff' idea could even be set higher, and introduced at inappropriate & sensitive sites such as GP surgeries, hospitals, sports playing fields and home car parks, e.g. 'PERMIT HOLDERS FREE IF YOU INPUT YOUR VRM & PERMIT CODE ON AN APP/SCREEN EVERY TIME YOU PARK. £300 TARIFF APPLIES TO ALL DRIVERS PARKING OTHERWISE' which catches new staff, GPs covering from other surgeries and not on the system, visitors to residents, carers, cleaners, couriers, taxis, traders coming to do repairs as well as new residents not yet issued with a permit, and would see those people pursued from the outset for £400, then £470. In fact, any level of 'tariff' plus £100 PCN is OK, according to this government!

Humdinger1

Thanks @Coupon-mad for all your time and expertise. Is there any way your statement and the one immediately above could be combined please for ease? Thanks as ever Humdinger x

daveyjp

All those MPs who said they were inundated with private parking complaints must enjoy dealing with them.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82180442#Comment_82180442

This clueless farce won't be due to them of course. This will be down to particularly "spineless"* policy advisers who are clearly out of their depth and easily taken in by the APA suits.

*word used by a clued up Civil Servant this week

Car1980

"I have known for a very long time that this day would come. Our sector has worked incredibly hard to make sure it is ready for this moment. Because of that work, we are in a very good place. The IPC supports a Code that raises standards, while ensuring a functional framework that works for motorists, landowners and operators alike. I am pleased the maximum parking charge of £100 has been retained. There is detail to work through, and we will do that carefully, with Government and with our members. To every IPC member: you are not alone in this. Today is the start of the next chapter. Welcome to the New World

Well, Hurley has to put a shine on the new reality. A slew of circumstances now mean cancellation is mandatory. And another batch of cases where 66% of the profit margin has been removed. Not fogetting the 5 minute period that will hurt IAS members in particular, such is their business model of attracting the bottom feeders. Plus the list of new requirements for signage requirements that means no more signs on 8 foot poles - and the expense of replacing others. And the challenge of defending the £70 'recovery charge' that is now full of more holes than Swiss cheese. Not to mention the future axing of his IAS cash scam. But chin up Will - those £100 charges haven't been touched (ignore inflation though - that's £85 in real terms!)

Papermate2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82180381#Comment_82180381

I'm absolutely up for combining my offering with @Coupon-mad ’s, provided she and the community agree. Merging these will create a single, forceful, copy-and-paste master document for everyone to use.

Because @Coupon-mad was so close to the actual drafting as part of the steering group , she is acutely aware of these lethal finer details—like the Equality Act breaches, the two-tier loophole, and that terrifying "tariff" trap—which went over my head in my haste to get a compelling structural argument out quickly.

What do you think, @Coupon-mad ?

If we merge them, your points would make a devastating addition. I think your section could be seamlessly introduced into the template with something like: "Furthermore, consider these incisive findings directly from a consumer expert who sat on the Government's own Steering Group for this Code:"

Whatever we decide, we need to finalise this master template immediately. The 40-day parliamentary clock is already ticking, and time is incredibly short to get MPs to file these Prayer Motions.

Humdinger1

Thanks @Papermate2 and @Coupon-mad for your help here. How does this interact with the CMA's role?

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82180936#Comment_82180936

I think let's not overwhelm the CMA, but instead concentrate on people lobbying their local MPs to invoke this:

2) After preparing a code under section 1, the Secretary of State must lay the code before Parliament.

(3) If, within the 40-day period, either House of Parliament resolves not to approve the code—

(a) the code is not to be issued, and

(b) the Secretary of State must prepare another code under section 1.