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

Coupon-mad

I just tested it myself and you can leave Q12 blank (after Strongly Disagreeing with Q11) so DO NOT answer Q12 and do NOT tick a £ box!

If you do, the AI will take that tick box and add you to the £1-£19 votes, regardless of comments.

BTW the main thing to add to the reasons in Q11 is:

The 'no win no fee' DRA model (they only get paid a % of the DRF* and only when they successfully collect) means that DRAs are not paid anything if they do the right thing and act in the interests of disputing motorists, such as bothering to spend more than a nanosecond 'pretending to consider' disputes and the Code of Practice Appeals Charter, returning a spurious or mitigation case to the client to cancel, or to allowing a Transfer of Liability.

SHOW SOME EVIDENCE LINKS TO CASES HERE PROVING WITH EMAILS AND LETTERS THAT DRAs CONTINUE TO ROUTINELY REFUSE DISPUTES AND APPEALS, REFUSE TO SEND A CASE BACK TO THE PPC TO REISSUE A PCN WHERE THE VICTIM HAS MOVED, ACTIVELY LIE ABOUT KEEPER LIABILITY AND REFUSE ToLs, etc.

Hence - REGARDLESS OF THE INDUSTRY BUMPING UP THE SUPPOSED COSTS OF DEBT RECOVERY - the no-win-no-fee model where the consumer pays (and covers the VAT element of any fee that the PPC pays the DRA* which HMRC has confirmed is illegal for VAT registered firms to make consumers pay...) MUST be banned because this does not meet the primary mandatory intent of the Code:

And the DRF isn't quantified on signs (show evidence - your own - metadata showing -pics of local PPC signs would be good) so the DRF cannot be part of the contract and is almost always disallowed by judges for that reason.

The government code of practice "must contain guidance that promotes good practice in the operation and management of private parking facilities". 

In terms of the DRF all proposals in the Options Assessment fail to promote good practice because none of them intend to change the DRF cap. This is unworkable, blah blah, no Government can accept a model with a fee that only pays the DRA for greedy practice, only banked when the weakest people pay but clearly disincentivising the DRA from acting fairly to accept keeper ToLs at pre-action stage and/or return disputed cases to the PPC to reissue or cancel... (in your own words).


*Just to explain how it works and the VAT issue:

- if a DRA gets the £160 or £170, they send it to the PPC who then pays the agreed commission on those paid cases, typically £50 plus VAT.  Therefore the £70 sees the consumer paying the VAT element which is illegal for enforcement fees after judgment (because the creditor gains from the service and can reclaim the VAT).

The same VAT rule applies to these fake fees too:

https://www.hceoa.org.uk/images/content/pdf-docs/2022-01-12_HCEO_-_VAT_guidance_-_updated_final_version.pdf

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

I cannot move on until I have ticked a box therefore I ticked £1-£19

Don't tick any box and don't fill anything in there. Can you then move on? This is really important because I need to alert the MHCLG if you cannot avoid ticking a box that has a £.

I tried not ticking  a box but could not move on, that's why I ticked the lowest available and made a point of noting my dissatisfaction with the way the survey had been written.  Too late to change it as it has been submitted.

Nellymoser

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.'

When people complete the survey I'd urge them to say where they found the accurate advice and where the misinformation (if any received) came from. 

Group Nexus and BPA AOS team mislead me, parking forum (MSE) and online searches was where I found the accurate info. The MHCLG need to know this.

Castle

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.

Coupon-mad

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).

Coupon-mad

"e.g. changes to the parking charge fee, the appeals system or debt recovery."

That's gobbledegook.

NONE of those are 'examples of misleading practice' and I'm struggling to understand the sentence.

Nellymoser

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.

I think that could be a good idea if it was more along the lines of a fact sheet of info and it banished the untruths we often find in the industry's correspondence and practice.

I felt it could stop the less knowledgeable pcn recipients believing what the industry's says, envisaging all sorts of nasties happening and frantically searching online for verification. I don't think it should tell us how to appeal, the pcn does that.

I suggested in my Q29 the pcn should contain a link to the fact sheet and a link to Govt CoP along with a statement saying 'we (the operator) adhere to this code should you feel we haven’t contact us @xxxx.' Much more beneficial than a link to Beavis.

kryten3000

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.

1505grandad

Appears to be updated version dates 14th August 2025  -  just in case relevant

EDIT  -  deleted link as updates appear to be only:-

1. 14 August 2025

   Removed references to paragraph numbers in questions 18(a), 25(a) and 27(a).

Castle

1505grandad said:

Appears to be updated version dates 14th August 2025  -  just in case relevant

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

Links to a "Page not found"