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

Le_Kirk

Nellymoser said:

Don't know how others feel but I expected to see the Govt completely ban the use of these error producing, not fit for purpose parking payment machines and systems.

Looks like this Govt wants to retain the opportunity for the parking operators to be able to issue pcns for machine, technology or human errors while giving only those motorists who can produce 'not my fault' evidence see their pcn cancelled at appeal.

I've gone to town on this in my (still not complete) consultation response.  It's taking forever, I've saved and returned three times now and still there are more questions, some I cannot answer as I don't have the info and some are repeat, asked in a different way type questions!  I've used a lot of "I refer my learned friend to my previous answer".

Le_Kirk

Le_Kirk said:

I put NO to both questions, saved my consultation intending to return.  In the meantime I have done some research and found a document from JustBeagle that seemed to show what we wanted and a link to Ministry of Justice stats but when I looked closer both were from 2017.  Not sure  that's what the consultation wanted!  Does the consultation aim to find out if the respondents know about the figures OR are they actually after the figures; if it is the latter, surely they can look then up as we can, indeed far easier than we can!

After further research, I changed my response but still did point out that it is not my job to provide figures or statistics and did eventually find some MOJ stats and gave a link to them, although they did not split out results when debt recovery was involved and whether or not it changed the outcome.
I have now finalised and submitted my replies having "stopped and saved for later" FIVE times.  I did find it annoying that when one used the email to continue the consultation it did not take one back to where one had left off, having to scroll to the bottom and hit the continue button multitudinous times.  There seemed to be some duplication of questions (maybe trying to trip us up into giving different answers to the same question!) and some of the questions were designed to be answered by specific sectors, i.e. not by me but my a car park operator.  It was certainly a marathon but forumites should not be put off answering, just save and come back later.  I only hope it is a proper consultation and not the usual "we've given you the chance to air your view but now we are going to do what we want anyway!"

defender001

This thread has become very long. Can someone summarise, perhaps in a pinned top-post, what the forumites are supposed to do in respect to the consultation?

ParkingMad

Apologies if this has already been posted elsewhere.

It’s interesting that the companies issuing the most PCNs aren’t the ones with the most Court claims. 

https://www.directlinegroup.co.uk/en/news/brand-news/2025/06032025.html

 

• Private parking companies are requesting vehicle ownership data, which assists them in issuing parking tickets every two seconds
• Private parking companies made a record 7.8 million requests to the DVLA for vehicle keeper records in the first six months of 2024/25 financial year 
• 2024/25 is on track to beat the record 12.7 million requests made in 2023/24 financial year 
• Requests have surged 85 per cent in five years while the number of companies requesting data rose by 45 per cent in the same period

Table 2: Top 10 parking management companies requesting vehicle ownership data in 2023/24: 

	Parking Management Company	Number of Requests
1	ParkingEye Ltd	2,232,254
2	Euro Car Parks Limited	1,638,886
3	Horizon Parking Limited	770,774
4	APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd	733,257
5	Smart Parking Ltd	664,140
6	Civil Enforcement Ltd	591,153
7	UK Parking Control Limited     (UKPC)	573,257
8	UK Car Park Management Ltd	402,127
9	Ranger Services Ltd on behalf of  CP Plus Ltd	401,711
10	Parkmaven Limited	392,997

Source: Churchill Insurance 2025

Castle

ParkingMad said:

Apologies if this has already been posted elsewhere.

It’s interesting that the companies issuing the most PCNs aren’t the ones with the most Court claims. 

https://www.directlinegroup.co.uk/en/news/brand-news/2025/06032025.html

 

• Private parking companies are requesting vehicle ownership data, which assists them in issuing parking tickets every two seconds
• Private parking companies made a record 7.8 million requests to the DVLA for vehicle keeper records in the first six months of 2024/25 financial year 
• 2024/25 is on track to beat the record 12.7 million requests made in 2023/24 financial year 
• Requests have surged 85 per cent in five years while the number of companies requesting data rose by 45 per cent in the same period

Table 2: Top 10 parking management companies requesting vehicle ownership data in 2023/24: 

	Parking Management Company	Number of Requests
1	ParkingEye Ltd	2,232,254        (2,300,360)
2	Euro Car Parks Limited	1,638,886        (1,733,493)
3	Horizon Parking Limited	770,774           (   875,833)
4	APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd	733,257           (   960,482)
5	Smart Parking Ltd	664,140           (   626,570)
6	Civil Enforcement Ltd	591,153           (   684,864)
7	UK Parking Control Limited     (UKPC)	573,257           (   579,806)
8	UK Car Park Management Ltd	402,127           (   444,678)
9	Ranger Services Ltd on behalf of  CP Plus Ltd	401,711           (   493,026)
10	Parkmaven Limited	392,997           (   519,481)

Source: Churchill Insurance 2025

The KADOE volumes for 2024/25 are now available on the DVLA website. Total requests for the year ended 31st March 2025 were 14,371,841 and the 2024/25 requests for the PPC's listed above are shown in brackets.

I wonder if the 31% increase in the requests made by APCOA are due to the removal of barriers at Airports.

The 2024/25 total for Smart Parking doesn't include the 157,894 requests made by "Local Parking Security Ltd" in the quarter to 31st March 2025.

Krunkled_Mustilid

Done. What a load of old b.s.

Le_Kirk

Krunkled_Mustilid said:

Done. What a load of old b.s.

Which particular part are you referring to as BS?

Coupon-mad

I've started to dig deeper and read the consultation a bit more.

But the Options Assessment (OA) looks as clear as mud. They have redacted a big black section and don't seem to have any clarity, pros or cons about 'Preferred Option 4'.

It looks like it's missing? Or have I missed it?

Yet I spotted these odd paragraphs in the OA that don't make sense, as there's no context:

Whaaat?

NONE OF THE PROPOSALS INCLUDE A CHANGE TO THE DRA FEE CAP?!

Yet the Consultation promises:

"The government wants to hear the views of all stakeholders in favour of, or against, the current industry cap of £70 on debt recovery fees. This will assist the government in considering whether to include the £70 industry cap in the Code, or whether another amount is more appropriate, or whether debt recovery fees should be banned."

Ummm... what preferred option section?

Ummm... what "reallocation of the parking charges to the motorist's disposable income'?!

What do they mean? Where is that section?

Also I found this published recently, the RPC assessment of the Options Assessment which shows its journey (it failed RPC clearance at first) which explains the extra delay this year:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6870ed942cfe301b5fb67a9e/RPC-MHCLG-25042-OA-Opinion_FINAL_v2.pdf

We need all drivers to know about this and I'm hopeful MSE Towers might get the MHCLG public consultation in the weekly email in good time, to drum up more consumer input. I'm on the case with that.

Just really confused by the above.

Some 'assumptions' in the Consultation should be called out, e.g.:

• "If the proportion of those paying does not change, our analysis suggests that debt recovery agencies would ‘break even’ (with costs that are equal to revenue) with a DRF of approximately £26. If DRFs were set below this level, this may impact the ability of debt recovery agencies to continue operating in this space and limit the availability of the debt recovery process as an option for parking operators to recover unpaid parking charges. This could increase the proportion of parking cases ending up in the court system and incurring associated costs."

Rubbish.

Banning the 'extortion' of consumers footing the operator's DRA bill plus the operator's VAT (plus a massive enhancement as a cherry on top that INCREASES the PCN face value for PPCs) doesn't mean DRAs won't be paid!

They already get paid by PPCs behind the scenes (plus VAT) and all motorists are saying is that it offends against public policy that consumers are paying for a service/supply and VAT (and extra profit) that the POFA intended to cap at the PCN as the 'maximum sum' recoverable.

Nobody is saying DRAs won't be paid.

There is no evidence that a '% commission off the PCN' model isn't viable for both operators and DRAs.

Castle

We need all drivers to know about this and I'm hopeful MSE Towers might get the MHCLG public consultation in the weekly email in good time, to drum up more consumer input. I'm on the case with that.

Just really confused by the above.

I need a lie down!

If only they knew somebody who has a 1 hour long live TV show on ITV.

patient_dream

This will assist the government in considering whether to include the £70 industry cap in the Code, or whether another amount is more appropriate, or whether debt recovery fees should be banned."

This was a cloud dreaming attempt by OSNER TO EXTORT MORE MONEY.
The BPA approved it to keep their members happy. It is without doubt, an EXTORION CHARGE AND MUST BE BANNED

There are other words that should be banned...
DAMAGES
ADMIN

BAN DEBT COLLECTOR CHARGES