Parking Code of Practice Consultation - 8 weeks from 11th July 2025

Coupon-mad

We shouldn't be linking people only to the Consultation, or they won't see the Options Assessment.

This link will not change (even if edits are done) and this is also the one in the opening post:

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

kryten3000

Corrected link here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

Coupon-mad

Yes ... but in my view, we shouldn't be supplying that limited link for the reasons I stated above.

It doesn't show the person everything they could read if they wanted to really dig deeper and see the MHCLG's list of proposals, which are not fit for purpose because none of them come with any intention to ban DRFs or even change the £70, which is frankly appalling as a set of proposals and I can't get my head around it.

Coupon-mad

Castle said:

Nellymoser said:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686d45d281dd8f70f5de3cac/private-parking-consultation-options-assessment.pdf

Page 12 last paragraph:

'Some operators are engaging in poor practices by withholding information or using misleading tactics so that motorists are not aware of their rights e.g. changes to the parking charge fee, the appeals system or debt recovery. In addition, the proliferation of discussion threads in online motorist forums has obvious potential to give motorists a large amount of advice which may be inconsistent, incomplete, unclear or out of date, given that it will not always have been verified or kept under regular review by trustworthy sources. It also contributes to increasing pressure within the court system as the number of cases reaching court continues to increase.'

The Government, (in question 29), want to bring in "Non Statutory Guidance" for motorists-which is not going solve these problems.

kryten3000 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Both of those would have come from the parking industry and the MHCLG has quoted it as if it's true.

Hurley has been pushing for years for 'motorist guidance' (i.e. it props up the usual consumer blame culture that his members could potentially then use to wriggle out of responsibility to comply with aspects of the Code).

See 247advice.co.uk - This is a trading style of United Trade and Industry Ltd which is, of course, the parent company running the IPC and IAS.

Government Guidance

"The consultation seeks views on the government publishing non-statutory guidance for motorists and mandating that parking operators provide a link to this guidance in correspondence with motorists."

The answer to this one is a complete no, loud and clear, and explain why now is not the time!

This should NOT come from the MHCLG themselves anyway - it is not the place of government to use the Knight Act to tell motorists what to do - and anything like this (even if well intentioned) MUST NOT come in at this stage, as it will muddy the waters of the statutory Code.

It will also confuse the press, the public and judges. It will give weight to a consumer blame culture which is completely inappropriate at this stage, flowing from this legislation.

The Knight Act was never about the conduct of motorists.
We cannot have two sets of 'Guidance' confusing the press, the public and judges alike.

I'd bet this idea will have come from the trade bodies who have long dreamt of morphing their own non-impartial, consumer blame culture dross ('Know your Parking Rights' - BPA - and '247 advice' - IPC - websites) into some sort of government platform status.

No, no, no and more no to that question, with the caveat that some proper motorist guidance could reasonably come later from the Scrutiny Board, two or more years down the line, once the penny drops with those independent persons, what an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard, MPs in 2018) they are having to deal with.

But it MUST NOT come in with - and distract from - the statutory Code.

Coupon-mad

Caps on parking charges:

Summary of this set of questions and some suggested factors to consider:
The government is consulting on maintaining the existing industry parking charge cap of £100 (a flat cap across all areas). However,
- the government has not reached a final view on the appropriate level of any cap and remains open to hearing views on other amounts
- the government is also seeking views on the current 40% discount for early payment within 14 days of receiving the parking charge

Question 7(a): Do you agree that the Government should include the current industry cap of £100 in the proposed new Government Code? 

I'm still thinking about this one because (in my view) the need for a COMPLETE ban on DRFs is more important. I can see that a £100 cap could work as long as DRFs are banned. I did always think that £50 was a bit too low and I never called for that level - there, I've said it!

However, £100 is a rip off level and this industry should not be incentivised to carry on getting most or all their income from issuing as many PCNs as possible. But if the cap was lower, say £75 (or £85 like in the Supreme Court landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis) would that make any difference to this sector's 'issue as many PCNs as possible' greed?

I'm unsure. One for individuals to think about and give your opinion here.

Some regulars suggest 'disagree' or 'strongly disagree' if you feel that £100 is far too high for a parking charge on private land. Also choose a 'disagree' answer if you feel strongly about suggesting a more proportionate approach - such as TWO LEVELS: a lower level - say £70 like you typically see at supermarkets - for minor oversights (like not inputting your VRM when a patron of a gym) and a higher level - max £90? £100? say what you think - only for things that are 'selfish parking'.

Give more detail about your thoughts on this, in your answers to Question 7(b) & 7(c).

Question 7 (d) If the Government were to introduce a lower cap, or different caps in different areas (e.g. higher in London but lower elsewhere), what would the benefits and costs be? 

My opinion: A specific 'lower' cap for minor 'human error' contraventions that cause no social harm because they aren't selfish parking (such as all the people currently getting caught unawares by the new barrier-less drop off systems at Airports) is totally the right thing for the government to do.

The withdrawn Code paved the way for two levels, so the work is already done to split the contravention list in two. AND the DFT have only just refused some BPA-encouraged Local Authority calls to increase on-street penalties (outside of London) so clearly a lower rate than £100 in most instances is considered viable and an effective deterrent by the Government this year.

To charge a 'flat rate' regardless of severity of breach is arguably a penalty rate. In ParkingEye v Beavis, the Supreme Court confirmed that Lord Dunedin's 'tests for a penalty' remain good law as long as they are not construed too literally. Lord Dunedin's tests included this very point:

• There is a presumption (but no more) that a provision is penal if the same sum is payable in a number of events of varying gravity.

Second part of the question: re London. Different caps per geographical area? NO. This idea is not justified. Clearly, PPCs don't think London needs a different level private PCN, or they'd have invented it years ago. No PCN should be higher than the existing industry £100 and there's no evidence to support this idea.

A different level for 'London' (unspecified as a boundary or area by the last Government when they mooted it) is unjustified on private land. Why should a shopper overstaying 20 minutes at Tesco in Croydon pay more than the same thing in, say, Southampton? There's no comparable pressing need to keep traffic flowing (used as an excuse by the London Mayor to 'justify' extortionate council and TFL PCNs there) and there is no evidence that the high London PCN levels work better as a deterrent than Southampton on street PCN levels.

You have to have justification and evidence to try a geographical PCN experiment and it's exactly the sort of issue that'll be best left to the new Independent Scrutiny Board to use data to decide whether (from private land cases going through the appeals service and from complaints and issues they handle) there's a reason for a 'lower/higher' PCN tweak, later down the line.

Question 8(a): Do you think there should be a 40% discount on parking charges for early payment (within 14 days of receiving the parking charge)?

I'd recommend respondents hit Strongly Disagree or Disagree...even though I don't think there's sufficient evidence to argue that it should be a 50% discount, so (personally) I don't think that the actual 40% should change because the PPCs could issue a Judicial Review (again...) if this sort of change is imposed without evidence to support it

The reason why I suggest to 'DISAGREE' is explained in your free text answer to Question 8(b):

1. the 40% should be clearly stated to be a MINIMUM.  After all, plenty of PPCs offer 50% discounts now, and to impose 40% as a statutory requirement is the wrong language - it should be stated as a minimum discount of 40% but that PPCs are free to offer better discounts which is good practice and will please landowners who care about reputation.

2. the unspoken issue (but here is where to raise it) is that the too short discount period of 14 days should be made longer NOW, in this first Code. 14 days is an error that has been allowed to run in the industry for years and years, because there's nothing in it for the PPCs to have changed it to fairly match the '21 days discount from service' of a Local Authority PCN.

This is a 'win-win' idea for industry and consumers: council rules offer 21 days at the discount from delivery of the PCN by post. To copy the industry's windscreen-PCN hangover '14 days' shuts many people out who would have paid. It's unfair and an oversight for the trade bodies not to have provided a proper time for people to pay the lower sum upon learning about a postal PCN, which can be weeks later if people are away or the post takes ages to arrive or be opened.

If the MHCLG wants to weed out spurious PCNs and eventually only see reasonable and fair PCNs issued on private land, why would they not want to encourage people to have a fair time to pay on receipt of a PCN by post, as happens with councils? The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 requires a government code that 'promotes good practice'. This is a good practice suggestion, a very important safeguard.which fits in with the MHCLG's aims and is entirely cost-neutral to the industry.

In fact, PPCs stand to gain from more people paying and they can't chase a PCN in the first 28 days anyway, so there's no extra work or loss by allowing the discount for '21 days from service'. The ZatPark (PCN processing software) system can accommodate this easily because someone asked them this very question at the Parkex industry conference and it's understood that industry flagship firm ParkingEye already have a flexible 'extend the discount & pay' button as an option on their website. That is best practice.

Conclusion: The government should set in stone '21 days from service' as the allowed discount period for all postal NTKs to offer. Not 14, which is only fair for windscreen PCNs which are usually seen immediately on the day.

EDIT: I am not alone: PLEASE EVERYONE, PUSH FOR A '21 DAYS FROM SERVICE' DISCOUNT PERIOD AND PLEASE POINT OUT THIS TWEAK IS COMPLETELY COST-NEUTRAL AND A FANTASTIC EXAMPLE OF BEST PRACTICE THAT THE TRADE BODIES CAN HAVE NO ISSUE WITH:

LoneStarState said:

I am also of the belief this should be extended and matched to the LA PCN discount timeline.

Too often people seem to magically receive a PCN in the post several days after an alleged "date of posting" that is received within POFA timelines but significantly shrinks the discount window so that the 14 day discount window is reduced to a less than 10 days.  Now I'll admit some of this could be due to substandard postal service but every time I've posted something (and I still post letters a fair bit) they seem to be delivered in time or very close to the timelines for the respective Royal Mail delivery targets, not several days after as some NTKs seem to be received.

It should be mandated that the discount window is 21 days from the date of service (not date of the notice as is currently used) of the PCN  That effectively gives a motorist 23 days minimum (more if there are interceding Sundays/bank holidays between the issue date and presumed service date) to pay from the date of the notice at the discount rate and minimises any possible tactic by operators to excessively artificially shrink the discount window by delaying postage.  If there is any artificial delay, a motorist will still have ample time and operators risk not being POFA compliant.  And as you've said, no work is done by the PPC in that first 28 days anyways.

Question 9: What factors do you think the Scrutiny and Oversight Board should take into account when considering whether to recommend changes to the parking charge cap?

This is Free text so you might want to suggest that the Board must NOT increase the cap without consultation with motoring and consumer groups, not just industry. To lower caps for certain contraventions they should consider any evidence of consumer harm that they and the appeals service will expose in the first two years after the Code as well as any data and complaints patterns that suggest too much money is being made from a minor transgression that keeps repeating: such as the barrier-less drop off (entrapment) zone at Manchester and other Airports.

The Scrutiny Board must be very wary of being pressured by the parking industry trade bodies. The legislation was brought in to deal with market failure and huge consumer harm caused by this industry so the Board must not let the trade bodies unpick the code or press for more money. 

And they must not place any weight in irrelevant 'penalty' comparisons, such as train fare evasion fines or the outcome of the Summer 2025 Bournemouth on street PCN experiment with higher levels of penalty. The Board must remember this is not a penalty regime. 

Coupon-mad

Placeholder for discussion about the next set of questions after the above

Coupon-mad

Placeholder for discussion about the next set of questions...

Coupon-mad

Placeholder for discussion about the next set of questions

sorry, this will be needed I think and will take a few days this week! 

  

Umkomaas

👆👆 Great stuff @Coupon-mad. 

Going through the Consultation notes and starting to get my own thoughts together, unless one is familiar with all the issues and nuances, I do wonder how the average motorist who's been hit by the PPC juggernaut, can understand, let alone respond at the level at which the MHCLG seem to want. 

And God help the ex-clamping knuckle-draggers of PPC world .... unless they're going to be given a 'copy and paste' that they can (once again) dump into the response portal .... spelling and grammatical errors included!

LoneStarState

Coupon-mad said:

2. the unspoken issue (but here is where to raise it) is that the too short discount period of 14 days should be made longer NOW, in this first Code. 14 days is an error that has been allowed to run in the industry for years and years, because there's nothing in it for the PPCs to have changed it to fairly match the '21 days discount from service' of a Local Authority PCN.

This is a 'win-win' idea for industry and consumers: council rules offer 21 days at the discount from delivery of the PCN by post. To copy the industry's windscreen-PCN hangover '14 days' shuts many people out who would have paid. It's unfair and an oversight for the trade bodies not to have provided a proper time for people to pay the lower sum upon learning about a postal PCN, which can be weeks later if people are away or the post takes ages to arrive or be opened.

If the MHCLG wants to weed out spurious PCNs and eventually only see reasonable and fair PCNs issued on private land, why would they not want to encourage people to have a fair time to pay on receipt of a PCN by post, as happens with councils? The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 requires a government code that 'promotes good practice'. This is a good practice suggestion which is cost-neutral. In fact, PPCs stand to gain from more people paying and they can't chase a PCN in the first 28 days anyway, so there's no extra work or loss by allowing the discount for '21 days from service'. The ZatPark (PCN processing software) system can accommodate this easily because someone asked them this very question at the Parkex industry conference and ParkingEye already have a flexible 'extend the discount & pay' button on their website, I hear.

I am also of the belief this should be extended and matched to the LA PCN discount timeline. 

Too often people seem to magically receive a PCN in the post several days after an alleged "date of posting" that is received within POFA timelines but significantly shrinks the discount window so that the 14 day discount window is reduced to a less than 10 days.  Now I'll admit some of this could be due to substandard postal service but every time I've posted something (and I still post letters a fair bit) they seem to be delivered in time or very close to the timelines for the respective Royal Mail delivery targets, not several days after as some NTKs seem to be received.

It should be mandated that the discount window is 21 days from the date of service (not date of the notice as is currently used) of the PCN  That effectively gives a motorist 23 days minimum (more if there are interceding Sundays/bank holidays between the issue date and presumed service date) to pay from the date of the notice at the discount rate and minimises any possible tactic by operators to excessively artificially shrink the discount window by delaying postage.  If there is any artificial delay, a motorist will still have ample time and operators risk not being POFA compliant.  And as you've said, no work is done by the PPC in that first 28 days anyways.