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

Protest

The high cap (£100) is justified as containing an incentive - a penalty charge independent of costs incurred by the operator. This is intended to act on errant motorists to encourage better behaviour. Unfortunately it works even more potently on some operators, incentivising breach-of-contract entrappment and hence much of the stupidity that we see as contested PCN invoices.

This moral hazard hidden within the cap needs exposure and remedial action - ie a cap that removes any idea of penalty or incentive. It is the operators' responsibility to supervise their facilities, they cannot run ropey systems and charge motorists (even the "bad" ones) for revenue leakage. 

Nellymoser

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.

IMO the Govt have selected the wrong solution to address this problem. Their choices will do nothing to simplify the parking experience for motorists. I'm left asking is this Ministerial Dept incompetent or negligent.

patient_dream

"is this Ministerial Dept incompetent or negligent."

YES TO BOTH

Coupon-mad

Posted this on another thread at the weekend after @LoneStarState reminded us all about the bombshell clout of the CMA and the DMCC Act but it's more relevant here:

Coupon-mad said:

Wonder how the DMCC Act affects the current/recent conduct of:

- operators
- DRAs
- the shonky Appeals Services
- the APAs and their shonky 'Joint Code'.

There's a heck of a lot of REALLY interesting silver bullets in the DMCC Act which is clear, even if you skim-read the Technical Note first you get a flavour of it:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unfair-commercial-practices-cma207

I don't even think the MHCLG's current proposals and presumptions comply...

We need to trawl though this Act for the Public Consultation and/or we can (LOTS OF US) insist the Government consults the CMA - and the FCA and the ICO - thoroughly.

And everyone (newbies included of course) if you can - and even if you have no spare time, knowledge or inclination to do the Consultation yourself - please please tweet the Public Consultation to the CMA, FCA and ICO and/or tag them in a 'shout out' encouraging responses on whatever Social Media we all use.

We could also tag organisations like the Private Hire / Taxi trade publications, courier organisations, Citizens Advice, StepChange, Money Advice Trust, et al and suggest they join the consumer voice to ban 'debt recovery fees' in this sector completely.

Like with appeals, the parking industry should wholly fund any third party involvement, out of the millions they are rinsing in PCNs.

That way (if the DRAs are paid by the industry a going rate regardless of consumer outcome) DRAs won't be in incentivised to ignore matters that arise that make them no money (transfers of liability, permits, blue badges, realisation of keying errors and cases needing reissued PCNs).

All of those outcomes fairly favour consumers but DRAs make no money if they recognise those cases. They currently completely ignore the Appeals Charter section of the Joint Code, saying 'it's too late, pay up and pay more or we'll sue.'

This is why consumers should NOT be the side asked to fund pre-action stage. It is unbalanced: if a DRA does the right thing by a consumer they MAKE NO MONEY.

Thus we can evidence and identify a lack of adequate management of the conflict of interest between giving solutions in the customer’s best interests and recommending an option that makes the firms more money.

If that sounds familiar, it was the exact rationale the FCA used when banning debt packagers from receiving referral fees:

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/financial-watchdog-proposes-ban-debt-packager-referral-fees-protect-consumers#

The FCA needs a social media shout...

  

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".