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

I've realised we should be sharing this link (not just the Consultation link) which includes the proposed 'minor corrections' and the MHCLG's 56 page Options Assessment:

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

People need to see all three links there.

Some of the supposed 'minor tweaks' to the withdrawn code are objectionable so we mustn't miss that question.

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.

I need a lie down!

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.

Coupon-mad

Which isn't back until the Autumn!

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

Nellymoser

It's not only the debt fees but the practice of the DRAs. The consultation survey in the debt fees section states
"This government is committed to ensuring that motorists are not intimidated during the debt recovery stage and that they are not misled, resulting in them taking a decision that they might not otherwise have taken."
But the document then gives no details (well none I can see) on how the Govt plans to achieve this.

patient_dream

But the document then gives no details (well none I can see) on how the Govt plans to achieve this. 

What can we expect from a Government who seems clueless ....... if they allow the fake £70, the government will then allow EXTORTION ...... we will see ???