Parking Code of Practice Consultation - remember remember the 5 September - it closes next week!

Coupon-mad

Question 21(a): Do you agree that an appeal decision should be made in favour of the motorist when a motorist can provide reasonable evidence that they had no choice but to breach the terms and conditions of a private car park?

I'm going to say: STRONGLY AGREE

Question 21(b): If you agree, please give examples of situations where you think this protection should apply. [Free text]

I will say something like this:

The 2025 'summary' list in the Consultation is a vast improvement on the wording in the Withdrawn Code because the Government has clarified - see underlines below - that the Appeals Charter is intended to include not just Blue Badges that were not fully visible at the time, but also permits (under the same rationale) and the MHCLG has clarified one at the end, about being a patron but not using a VRM keypad:

"The relevant mitigating circumstances already set to be listed in the Industry Code are (in summary):

• where the motorist has paid but made a keying in error
• where the driver or a passenger suffers the onset of illness, is delayed by an overrunning medical appointment or as a result of delay arising from childcare arrangements
• where the vehicle has broken down
• failing to display a parking permit or Blue Badge which the driver holds and which would have been valid for the parking
• where one or more payment machines were out of operation, no alternative payment options were available (e.g. by phone) and the motorist could not reasonably be expected to have accessed other machines that were still in operation
• where the vehicle would have been permitted to park but the motorist failed to enter their vehicle registration into a terminal/device"

PCNs should ideally not be issued at all as most are avoidable in the circumstances stated in the Appeals Charter. Parking firms are often fully aware that a vehicle seen daily has a permit or that their own machines were out of action, or apps are unreliable and take 15 minutes to download.

The first one on the MHCLG's list:

• where the motorist has paid but made a keying in error

...must be clarified to include cases where an app has defaulted to another vehicle used before. This is not a keystroke caused by the motorist but is still outside of their control (arguably this is a frustration of contract).

The MHCLG  also need to clarify "no choice but to breach the terms and conditions of a private car park" to confirm that this doesn't only apply to car parks but to all managed land.

This also needs clarifying:

• where one or more payment machines were out of operation, no alternative payment options were available (e.g. by phone) and the motorist could not reasonably be expected to have accessed other machines that were still in operation"

...should not just talk about 'machines' being 'out of operation'. Must include machines that have faults such as only printing 3 digits from a VRM, or an error code on a receipt, and back office payment processing systems that look like payment is made but then the merchant doesn't actually 'take' the money. Seen all that before.

The MHCLG should also add other circumstances for the Single Appeals Service to cancel charges so here are some answers you may or may not agree with, for 'situations where you think this protection should apply.'

I'd say any PCN that an adjudicator considers are unreasonable or unfair because they are:

(a) contrary to binding or persuasive case law, e.g. Duchess of Bedford House RTM Company Ltd & ors v Campden Hill Gate Limited [2023] EWCA Civ 1470 which protects residents whose rights or easements acquired under their lease or AST cannot be overridden and do not need to display or register for permits.

(b) consistent or exact matches for decisions made in 'key cases' already heard by the Single Appeals Service ('key cases' to be published on the Appeals Service website annually, to assist with consistency).

(c) in breach of any other section of the statutory Code of Practice.

(d) in breach of (and thus illegal under) any applicable consumer protection law for the country resided in or where the event took place, e.g. among a number of consumer protections, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, unfair terms are unenforceable. Under the the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, misleading actions or omissions are illegal. And in Scotland, the law goes further to prevent unfair treatment of breastfeeding mothers, and the law on trespass differs, e.g. public access is granted to most land under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code, allowing access for exercise, etc.

(e) contrary to a relevant alternative contract reasonably offered to a group or an individual driver by the landowner, and later evidenced by the appellant and where the alternative contract is supported by consideration: e.g. retail park staff told a driver to stop and wait on hatched lines to load a bulky purchase, or to await a takeaway delayed at a drive-thru, or a university expressly offered 'free parking' (relaxation of a permit scheme or time limit) for an Open Day but the PPC issued PCNs contrary to that alternative offer.

(f) except at Airport no-stopping zones: picking up or setting down passengers, stopping for no longer than necessary; including 'assisted boarding and alighting' (these scenarios are not parking and are 'exempt activity' for Local Authority PCNs). Need to protect taxi drivers and family/friends merely dropping someone off/pick up.

(g) except where parked obstructively or where expressly disallowed in specific bays or roads or where loading/unloading is expressly disallowed on adjacent prominent signs: a vehicle stopped in the same place for the purpose of loading or unloading (could use TFL Guidance on this). Need to protect delivery drivers.

(h) EVs being charged where parking signs are not legible from that bay and/or t&cs are overridden by a more prominent offer - either from the landowner or from the EV charging provider that contradict unseen t&cs, e.g. inviting drivers to use the EV bay without caveat or time restrictions, example here with images

(i) where a motorist was digitally excluded on site or when trying to appeal (this problem won't be solved by the National Parking Platform: many people will never use a smartphone or be able to go online to appeal).

(j) where autopay or a similar continuous arrangement has been removed - or fails due to no fault of the user, and no prominent message was communicated in a timely manner to signed-up users who may have many months gap between using the system.

(k) an Airport Drop-Off zone where the exit is barrierless and the system unfair: these need extra large LED repeater signs and a new reminder system also introduced, e.g. opt in to a text alert and have 48 hours to pay the tariff. The PCN discount should be a flat £15 as NCP used to offer . Complaints galore

(l) a tired driver, napping at a Motorway Service Area - see this case: Nicholas Bowen KC prevailed in that an MSA penalising drivers who fall asleep without seeing signs breaches consumer protection law. Similar to Airport drop-off zones, drivers should be able to opt in to a text alert and have 48 hours to pay the tariff. The PCN discount for MSA overstays should be a flat £15, as NCP used to offer at Gatwick. MSAs are similar.

(m) a case where certain PCN conduct has been (or operators know it is due to be) banned: to prevent older cases from being pursued - e.g. litigation of 5 minute rule cases continues even now = unreasonable.

(n) Cases invoking the legal duty (Equality Act 2010) to avoid discrimination against disabled persons and their carers, who are also protected: Disabled persons who 'overstay' (either paid for time or free parking time). Allowing the same fixed time is illegal, confirmed 15 years ago in this BBC article tested in this case which has seen Councils now add at least an hour's extra parking free, to comply with the law. See page 82, example 5.39 of the EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Services & Public Functions ('tours' example).

(o) Disabled persons who either displayed Blue Badges which have inadvertently expired but the appellant was unaware (there are no reminders!) OR who do not yet have a Blue Badge but in either case, where: the motorist can show other compelling evidence that they meet the 'definition of disability' under the Equality Act 2010 and that their condition is relevant to the provision (e.g. they needed more time).

(p) motorist using a double or single yellow line for exempt activity (e.g. loading, also Blue Badge holders can park for 3 hours when displaying a clock and blue badge) unless prominent repeater signs prohibiting that conduct are placed by the kerb, alongside the lines themselves. A reasonable interpretation of any markings must apply in the absence of signs beside lines. Any ambiguous terms or consumer notices (any message) MUST be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer (see Consumer Rights Act 2015)

(q) a case where the adjudicator agrees there was a valid 'reasonable expectation' supporting the parking that led to an unfair PCN, e.g. an expectation of being able to obtain a visitor permit but finding that the resident was not in their flat, or expectation that a shop or business was open but finding it unexpectedly closed.

(r) any case involving frustration of contract or impossibility of contract (e.g. t&cs require VRM to be input in a shop but the shop is closed and the motorist tries to seek out an alternative way to validate or pay, then leaves)

(s) a case under the doctrine of de minimis: trivial and plainly unreasonable terms 'no red cars' or a trivial 'breach' e.g. very minor line overhang, or accidentally selecting the wrong date when booking parking in advance but paying in full, like here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81613895/#Comment_81613895

This example of a 'de minimis' error is very like VRM keying errors and by appealing & supplying evidence to match up the payment, the consumer has helped the operator and the matter is closed. No money owed.

(t) a motorist forced to contravene in order to avoid an incident, or they were prevented from leaving; e.g. a traffic accident or fire affecting how and where vehicles could be left and for how long, including a site evacuation or gridlocked car park preventing cars from leaving. Or blocked in like this person: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81502935/#Comment_81502935

(u) The driver was directed to contravene by a police officer or fire officer on duty and attending to an incident in the vicinity

(v) The signs and lines were changed while the vehicle was already parked.

(w) Prohibitive terms (no consideration) or other issues with t&cs drafting that cause no contract to arise, in a case where the PCN relies upon contract.

(x) Breach of DPA principles. e.g. camera placed so unreasonably - e.g. on a shop over the road, filming a different site, or covert form of surveillance such as a hidden, high CCTV camera or lurking operatives unfairly taking photos on foot - that it breaches the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice and/or no data protection information was visible and/or stated how the data captured by cameras would be used.

(y) a 'double dip' case, where only the first and last movements past an ANPR camera are captured, but intermediate ones are not, resulting in claims that vehicles are "parked" for 5, 6, 7 etc. hours.

(z)  a case of entrapment or other wrongdoing by the operator, employee or self ticketer, e.g. covering up signs with a vehicle, parking a decoy vehicle overhanging bay lines to cause other cars to have to contravene, putting up temporary signs and removing them after taking photos, or misdirecting a motorist phoning the helpline, so that they act upon a wrong suggestion such as buying extra parking to compensate for a gap.

Bottom line:

Adjudicators MUST be trained to consider the fairness of a term or consumer notice because s71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 places a duty (on the courts) to do exactly that.

AND how exactly are motorists supposed to prove the above circumstances like this one? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81502935/#Comment_81502935

Why does the Code say people (not operators) have to shoulder the evidential burden to 'show' something happened when in court, an honest witness is believed and their word is their evidence-in-chief?

kryten3000

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

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

Debt recovery fees

Question 10(a): Are you in favour of, or against, the current industry cap on debt recovery fees of £70?

Answer: AGAINST

Question 10(b) asks you to explain. 

Our reasoning (your opinion may differ): DRFs paid by consumers must be banned.

This government has got it wrong and will have to re-consult because they've not provided a £0 option for people to tick and the Options Assessment fails to provide a single option where the DRF is even reduced or changed, let alone banned as it must be to deal properly with the immense consumer harm.

The last Govt got it right: 'extorting money from motorists'.

For more ideas on this answer, read the whole DRFs section of the Consultation and Options Assessment as well as my comments (in bold in Post 1 of this thread) about this business model. It doesn't work the way that the MHCLG's oddly presented Table 1 shows: that table & its assumptions are so simplistic as to be useless.

As well as the points I make in the first post, if you agree, you may wish to also point out:

- £70 'per PCN' = no cap at all! Residents with 10 PCNs = £700 for one letter. The MHCLG must rethink!

- Late Fee legislation caps late fees for B2B contracts at just £40 for debts up to £999.99. Why MORE?

- £70 per PCN clobbers the consumer with the 'VAT element' of a fee from PPC to DRA. HMRC: unlawful.

- ParkingEye v Somerfield - A £75 PCN wasn't a penalty but increasing it to £135 was unrecoverable.

- the POFA sets a 'maximum sum' recoverable from the keeper, no added fees

- small print 'there may be charges' on signs isn't sufficient. ParkingEye signs don't even mention fees

- ParkingEye never used to add DRFs (in-house cases) but now ambush with +£30 on LBCs. Comes too late!

- The MHCLG is saying that PPCs can just increase a PCN to £170 after day 28, but that's inappropriate for consumer contracts (all traders give their customers time to pay). This is wrongly mimicking a penalty model. 

- The MHCLG points to energy bills where £10 or £20 is added but utility bills are not the same as spurious parking charges. But energy bills are not comparable, being 'priority' debts, enforced in Magistrates' court. Water bills might be a slightly better comparator as they are non-priority debts pursuable in the county court, and they add an average of £10 as a late fee. Many are currently adding nothing due to the Cost of Living Crisis, and OFWAT's code says they must send at least two reminders first - in addition to the bill - and can only then add the minimal cost of pre-action reminders. This government has used those fees to try to 'justify' their proposals (bending the knee to the parking industry to avoid Judicial Review, while throwing consumers under a bus?) but the MHCLG has failed to state that those fees are 'LAST RESORT' when used by other industries. 

- This hasty increase on the stroke of day 29 is an unfair term, given the reminder letters (clause 24.4.) that the BPA always mandated for a decade (in the CoP since 2012) that the Joint Code just dropped. The Reminder letters must be restored (especially in the event that DRFs are retained or reduced, instead of banned). This isn't new: every PPC who started life in the BPA is used to these reminders and their ZatPark system can immediately and easily reinstate these letters into the PCN processing software. PPCs are now sending a ‘£170 debt letter’ (with no ‘debt resolution’ work done) on the stroke of day 29 because the Joint Code dropped the BPA reminders clause and the 2022 Code omitted it in error. This is the rogue practice effect:

UKPC letters before: 21 February 2023

UKPC letters now: 28 January

- The DMCC Act 2025 extends the CPUTRs and bans drip pricing & hidden costs. If there was an increase on day 29 to £170 (or any sum) that sum and that 'mandatory fee' timeline would ALL have to be specified on signs. Businesses must clearly display the total price, including any mandatory fees, taxes, or charges, from the very beginning of the contracting process. All costs and fees information must be provided clearly, in a timely manner, and in a way that the contracting consumer (the driver) is likely to see.

- This isn't detailed on any signs. Small print saying (at best) "additional fees may apply" isn't legal, MHCLG!

Regulars...anything to add to this section? ^^^^^

Question 11(a):  Do you agree that it is reasonable for motorists to be charged an additional sum to cover the costs relating to recovering unpaid invoices, also known as debt recovery fees?

STRONGLY DISAGREE

Question 11(b): Please explain your answer

Similar to the above thoughts.

Plus the fact that adding a fee creates a reward for getting past PCN and appeals stage and thus incentivises the all too easy poor practice of not sending PCNs and going straight to a £170 demand seen commonly from Smart Parking and Debt Recovery Plus.

Question 12(a) ;'which of the following cap levels do you think is reasonable for debt recovery fees:'

and 12(b)

Leave BOTH of these BLANK 

No comments in the free text box or you will be forced to tick a monetary DRF choice.

Motorists MUST see DRFs banned. More about how this unconscionable model 'works' is in the first post. Please get your head around and tear apart the simplistic 'Table 1' (I have touched upon one or two flaws in the assumptions in the first post of  this thread including the basic fact that if DRFs are banned, it is absurd for the MHCLG to assume that the number of people who would pay, would remain at 13/14%).

Question 13(a): Do you have any data or evidence relating to the number of  private parking cases being taken to County Court in England and Wales, or the Sheriff Court in Scotland?

As an individual you are unlikely to have much/any 'data' but you can give 'evidence' so choose YES

@daveyjp suggests here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81544391/#Comment_81544391

"As there is very little chance to offer much in terms of lived experiences and shortcomings of the present system (in particular DVLA bending a knee to the industry and lack of any meaningful sanctions when wrongdoing is identified) I would home in on Q13 and go to town as to why cases end up in court."

This answers Question 13(b): "If yes, please explain your answer &feel free to provide information on why private parking cases are ending up in the courts?"

So, if you are either trapped in pre-action threatograms or have had a claim or CCJ, we suggest you use this question to tell the MHCLG how you found yourself here. We know you didn't choose court but the government seems to be assuming it's because people are 'reading poor online information' and are floating cluelessly into a court claim and it's all the fault of people for 'failing to engage'!

What is the truth in your case, if it's not true (unfair) to assume that it's your fault for 'failing to engage'? Lost at the IAS because it's a kangaroo court? Tried to dispute/talk to a DRA & found it was futile? Had so many CCJs that you had no choice but to have it resolved in court because they'd added a ridiculous set of multiples of £70 which nobody in their right mind would pay? Felt like you were drowning in anxiety?

And you can point them to the MoJ stats and point out that MoneyClaims are up 20% this quarter:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2025/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2025

Tell the MHCLG to ask the MoJ for 2025 claim numbers from the same five 'car park related bulk claimants' that were in table 7.8 in the 2023 draft Impact Assessment. 

You could suggest that the MHCLG compare the two set of figures, then and now, wake up and realise that things are getting far worse. This is due to greedy superprofits from DRF extortion that the last government spotted in the end, but this government seems blind to, or running scared of the parking industry.

You could do some searches of the forum to count up numbers of new claims from DCB Legal that involve either G24 or Smart Parking, both of which only started featuring this year in litigation because DCB Legal has imported a bulk load of VERY OLD legacy data from 5 or 6 years ago (in most G24 cases).

If you have time and are familiar with searching the forum, you could do a quick study of G24 claims and summarise the average age of the PCNs being claimed in 2025. Are they mostly 2020 or 2021 PCNs? This would make good evidence to show 'why' cases are flooding to court: DCB Legal is picking up very old PCNs where, even if a Defendant (luckily) hasn't have moved house and missed the Claim Form, they will not have any evidence to dispute it at pre-action stage.  People are just being fed into court like a sausage machine.

Or you could point to evidence of the conduct of DRAs in blocking disputes and ignoring Transfer of Liability requests because that makes them no money. Lots of cases like that on here that could be used!

And you could point to DRAs' rogue conduct earlier in the process, such as refusing to let a keeper appeal an obviously unfair and predatory PCN issued in eleven seconds flat, where SolutionLabs excelled themselves by trying to force them to name the driver and saying they'd 'removed and deleted' the keeper's appeal!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6623611/what-next/p1

And you could point the MHCLG to this thread of typical meritless claim forms (some shockers here):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6493434/courtserve-and-claim-form-evidence-of-the-parking-firm-claim-tsunami/p1

Question 14(a): Do you have any data and evidence relating to the impact of debt recovery fees on industry and consumers?

As an individual you are unlikely to have any 'data' but you can give 'evidence' so choose YES

Question 14(b)

You can recount your own case and how the £170 threatograms impacted you.  Go to town on it, remembering to stay on the topic of 'the impact of debt recovery fees'. Show your letters as evidence and tell the MHCLG how this scared you, angered you, and you could not have afforded that? (maybe?) that you'd have paid the PCN if it hadn't been inflated to 'rip off' level. £60 is bad enough but £170 was enough to make you refuse, on principle?

Say exactly what you think about the impact of DRFs on ordinary people at the time of a Cost of Living Crisis.

Or maybe it was a multiple PCN case and the multiple added £70 was clearly extortion and why the heck can the MHCLG not see that?

Or recount and show evidence (links or saved pictures of letters) to other people's cases you've assisted with here or on Facebook or maybe for vulnerable family & friends, or use cases you can find here on the forum, where the motorist expressed anxiety and abject fear, thought bailiffs were coming knocking at the door?

For those who want to dig deeper and cover more in your answer:

The 'Table 1': Average Annual Economic Transfer (£ million) is simplistic & badly flawed.

Anyone who is good at economics and/or maths and stats: please tear into this as best you can - with gusto - in the time you have available. Apart from anything else, that table is based on the impossible assumption that if £70 rip-off fees were banned or reduced, still only 13/14% of people would pay! 

They also miss the fact that £70 'per PCN' is no cap at all for victims with multiple PCNs!

And the MHCLG appears to wrongly assume that (when sadly, some people give up and pay unfair PCNs) the DRA keeps the £70 and the PPC keeps the £100. That isn't the case.

NB: parking forum regulars: it is important to use the screenshot evidence we have to prove that DRAs in this industry advertise a  service.no-win-no-fee

In practice, it works like this:

PPCs actually pay a fee plus VAT to the DRA for successfully recovered cases only - say £50 plus VAT, or (I suspect) a more competitive % if it's a mass bulk litigator - and the DRA pays £170 to the PPC.

So, when doing the WRONG thing by consumers - bullying them into paying and refusing transfers of liability and valid disputes - PPCs make an extra £20 or more (ON TOP OF A PCN, INCENTIVISING CHURNING CASES TO THIRD PARTIES PREMATURELY) and DRAS make £50 (or a % of the £70) per recovered case but they make nothing for other cases.

While no-win-no-fee isn't illegal - it's used in some other sectors but where 'real' bills are being collected and the only issue is the consumer 'can't or won't pay' or merely disputes the amount - this is an unconscionable business model for a rogue sector identified as in 'market failure' and super-profiteering (63% profits for DRAs!).

It cannot stand. No 'Options' in the Options Assessment are acceptable because none of them intend to change the £70 being extorted from motorists. If you agree, please express this to the MHCLG as best you can, whether you're a maths/economics whizz or not.

Coupon-mad

Consideration and Grace Periods

Question 17(a): Do you believe the details set out in Table B.1 remain appropriate for use in the proposed new Government Code?

I'm going to put a big fat: NO

Question 17(b) Reasons

My opinion: you CANNOT HAVE A 'ZERO' CONSIDERATION PERIOD in contract law!

- in a 'Tariff for parking - pay up front for specified period (e.g. pay-and-display)' or pay by app car park, 5 minutes is insufficient. Partly because sometimes the pat and display machine has a queue (that the consumer won't be able to evidence later) or the machine might be on another floor! Especially with apps that you have not downloaded before, 5 minutes is having a laugh!

- in a 'Tariff for parking - booked in advance (e.g. on-line)' car park, you CANNOT have a zero consideration period. Come on MHCLG, what if the motorist has booked parking from 6pm and drives in past a camera, ready for their paid-for session and looks to find a space at 5.56pm?!

- from Table 4 'Restricted', both 'Short-stay' and 'Permitted users' car parks say that a consideration period is Not Applicable but again, that is ludicrous! You cannot have any 'not applicable' cases.

I assume by 'Short-stay' they mean up to 30 minutes (because the table above it starts at 30 mins) but this means that there will be no time allowance to read a sign or even adjust the position of your car as you swing into a Hospital pick up bay, for example. Over a line for 5 seconds on arrival before you've even parked and left the car, let alone seen a sign? = Immediate PCN by CCTV!

I believe by 'Permitted Users' they mean gym, hotel, GP surgery & pub car parks (with keypads) and also residential or business visitor only car parks. They could also mean staff car parks, and disabled parking bays too.

- In in a residential 'permitted users' car park or area there CANNOT be a zero consideration period or every milkman, delivery driver, taxi driver, friend or family of a resident will be immediately ticketed by predatory CCTV or otherwise.

- There MUST be a minimum 10 minutes for deliveries and picking up or setting down a passenger at permitted user car parks. Loading, unloading and picking up/setting down is not 'parking'.

- And what about where residents have either access to an exempting 'kiosk' in the communal area or an online system they can use at home to add visitor's VRMs on their PC or phone using an app, or what about where a resident has a stash of paper 'visitor scratch-cards' in their flat?

None of which the visitor (e.g. carer, midwife, or a tradesperson) could possibly hold on arrival! 

- It would take at least ten minutes to gain 'permission' from a resident (could involve a flight of stairs then running back down with the visitor permit). A resident won't know when their visitor will arrive, nor do they know in advance the carer/midwife or tradesperson's VRM. And a resident is hardly likely to stand at their door all morning clutching a visitor scratch-card on the off-chance!

- What if it's a staff member turning up for their first day of work? How quickly are they meant to get 'permission' to park their car, after having parked their car? What about potential staff attending job interviews?

- And what about disabled people using a dedicated 'accessible bays' area in a multi storey, or Hospital where there is either a requirement to scan the Blue Badge or 'register' it at reception, not to just display it as the driver would expect. Are they being given zero time to discover this obligation and comply ('register')?

- When visiting a business park (or even a shop with 'permitted users' spaces) you can't have no time allowed to read the signs, go into premises to input your VRM/ask the business to add it to a whitelist!

- You also cannot penalise motorists for driving in and driving out, having taken a few minutes to read a sign, realise it is restricted and/or the person they're visiting isn't in so they can't get a visitor permit, or the GP surgery is closed...or they're in the wrong car park.

The list is endless; nobody should be subjected to PCNs like these typical examples I gathered:

14 April  Username: Vikom04 “7 minutes”

14 April  Username: magjp904 “30 seconds”

25 April  Username: Argonaut1983 “1  minute”

17 March  Username: lia254 “13 seconds: Pulled over, put in Satnav info.”

11 November 2024  Username: Ulrich "7 minutes" pulled over, CCTV on a distant building

 3 April  Rentalcarvictim "4 mins" turned & left.

19 March  NewBoy12 ...app failed, so they left

27 March  boodadude ...app failed, so they left

22 March   Username: stomp84 “Pulled up to ring bell to ask about parking”

19 April  newspaper article: ‘6 minutes’.

15 April  Username: TobyBarnett  ‘7 minutes’.

17 April  Username: Valefan ‘6 minutes’

19 April  Username: mz1992 "20 seconds dropping off passenger".

24 April  Username: JN33 "2 minutes": driver dropped water in the foot-well.

30 January  Username: victim7 "20 seconds ...warden took pictures sat in his own vehicle.”

15 March  Username: fearbeag "3 minutes pulled over as entrance was blocked”.

3 April  Username: Front_crawl “Pulled over for seconds, for a car to pull out.”

6 April  Username: mike230652 “<2 minutes: to let my disabled daughter out.”

14 April  Mumof3grownups cash cow trap, Manchester Piccadilly

6 November 2024  101Labradoodles cash cow trap, Manchester Piccadilly

15 April  elyo92 cash cow trap, Manchester Piccadilly

18 February  Username: stranger223 "5 minutes. Delivery driver".

THERE MUST BE CONSIDERATION PERIODS.

Please express this very clearly. This one is vital.

Coupon-mad

Reduced charge for certain mitigating circumstances

Background, taken from the Consultation:

"The Industry Code departs from the Withdrawn Code by not requiring cancellation of a parking charge in all mitigating circumstances. Instead, for some of the mitigating circumstances:

- the Industry Code states that, if the motorist can provide evidence of those mitigating circumstances, then the £100 parking charge should be reduced to £20 if paid within 14 days, rather than cancelled outright.

- the Industry Code also states this is only applicable to the first parking charge (First Charge) and where no independent second stage appeal is lodged.

The government is seeking to better understand what is meant by the First Charge provision as well as seeking views on whether these same provisions, i.e. only a reduction in charge not a cancellation, should apply to some of the mitigating circumstances in the Code.

The relevant mitigating circumstances listed in the Industry Code are (in summary):

• where the motorist has paid but made a keying in error
• where the driver or a passenger suffers the onset of illness, is delayed by an overrunning medical appointment or as a result of delay arising from childcare arrangements
• where the vehicle has broken down
• failing to display a parking permit or Blue Badge which the driver holds and which would have been valid for the parking
• where one or more payment machines were out of operation, no alternative payment options were available (e.g. by phone) and the motorist could not reasonably be expected to have accessed other machines that were still in operation
• where the vehicle would have been permitted to park but the motorist failed to enter their vehicle registration into a terminal/device

These are set out in full at Annex F of the Industry Code (the Appeals Charter)."

Question 18(a): Do you think that the Code should include a reduced charge for a parking charge that meets one or more of the mitigating circumstances or do you think that the parking charge should be cancelled?

Motorists, what do you think? I am going to put this as a big fat 'NO' which is:

'Cancellation of Charge'

Question 18(b): My opinion and reasons:

The Joint Code allowing a disingenuous £20 'settlement' then their members merely need to wait 14 days then can sue everyone anyway' is unjustified extortion.

- this £20 is expecting people to fund the PPC's ordinary business costs. Sending automated PCNs out in the post - AI generated- then sometimes having to cancel them is not extraordinary costs. It's not a matter of the PPC staff being 'diverted from their usual work'. This IS their usual work that staff are paid to do, same as handling appeals and disputes this MUST NOT be charged to consumers. This is unacceptable as a matter of social and consumer protection policy. 

- not cancelling a PCN means it just jumps back up to £100, then more, if people see it as a rip off (and refuse to be bullied to cover the trader's operating costs). That is what drives unjustified cases to court over keying errors, blue badges, fluttering tickets, app failures and  all the other Appeals Charter promises. Bottom line: Does the MHCLG want Appeals Charter cases to carry on to court? Surely not.

- Since not paying the £20 (as a matter of principle to most right-thinking motorists faced with an unfair PCN) means the full PCN would kick back in and cases could end up in court, the real question is this: "Would a judge uphold a contractual PCN in these Appeals Charter circumstances?"

The answer is "no" because these Appeals Charter examples are generally beyond the control of the driver. There is a wealth of case law and statute protecting consumers from unfair charges like this.

- Case law includes Jolley v Carmel ('all reasonable endeavours') and statute law includes the Consumer Rights Act 2025 (unfair terms) as well as the Equality Act 2010 (it is expressly illegal to penalise or harass - demand money - from a person with protected characteristics who is entitled to use an accessible bay).

- There's also the 'de minimis' principle, a legal doctrine by which a court refuses to consider trifling matters.

- And the doctrine of frustration discharges both parties from their contractual obligations where following the formation of the contract, performance of the contractual obligations become either impossible or radically different. The doctrine of frustration allows for is a remedy in case of a change of circumstances where the frustrating event occurs without the fault of either party. Whilst the law does not protect a party from a bad bargain, frustration DOES protect against an unfortunate one. A judge would be bound by this doctrine.

- the example that says "where the vehicle would have been permitted to park but the motorist failed to enter their vehicle registration into a terminal/device" is making a ridiculous assumption that the failure lies with the consumer! More likely a dodgy VRM keypad, a signal drop-off or back office system error (or a hidden keypad which is unlawful in itself and Defendants would still win). We've had three court wins in front of judges this part month that confirm that where there is no evidence that it was the Defendant's fault, the claim fails. In your response you might like to show the MHCLG the 'whose fault was it - no evidence' court outcomes reported by

@flowercuppatea
and @babtunde345
and @Lemonhead39 

- This would create a new and different level of 'mandatory charge' (an extra PCN 'admin fee' risk level) and under the DMCC Act 2025, businesses must clearly display the total price, including any mandatory fees or charges, from the very beginning of the contracting process. The driver would have to either know or be able to calculate the fee and know the risk that if the £20 wasn't paid, the parking charge would kick back in and they could be sued. None of this is on any signs, so ... let's all tell the MHCLG that they can't allow it.

Do not forget to also cover the second part of this question, the First Charge idea.

Data concerns

The 'First Charge' idea is a moneymaking scam idea but it also seems to be saying that the industry would retain data and look back to see if that VRM had cropped up before and if the keeper had been offered the £20 'admin fee'. How long will they keep data for? It is not clear whether they mean the same location, e.g. ParkingEye and Euro Car Parks are huge and could trawl their entire database to find that VRM matched a previous case three years ago and fifty miles away.

- even if it was a recent error in the same car park, quite possibly it could involve a DIFFERENT DRIVER!

It is unworkable, unfair and set up to make more money. 

It must be refused.

- Not only that, are this rogue industry seriously suggesting that they only have to 'let a disabled person off' for their Blue Badge slipping off the dashboard (or forgetting it) ONCE, even though forgetfulness could be a feature of the person's disability? That's illegal. Also, they are now introducing a new scam: making disabled people have to take extra steps - as in this APCOA case - just because the industry want to use ANPR cameras and issue all PCNs remotely. This is catching no end of vulnerable people out and harvesting special category data (of a disabled person) without the double justification test being met.

PPCs want to set people up for falls and say 'one strike & you're out', even to disabled people.

- No consumer should be charged £20 under any of these circumstances. It is profiteering and a rogue PPC could deliberately make a living from this! For example, they could deliberately use machines that only take 3 digits of a VRM, faulty apps and dodgy keyboards, or supply unreliable apps they've created themselves, or supply very flimsy Pay and Display tickets in windy car parks (take a bow, Armtrac). Basically making it difficult for people to comply, then rake in £20 a pop from scattergun PCNs, upping a large percentage of them to £100 two weeks later for those persons not quick enough to pay £20 or who won't pay such a rip off admin fee.

The MHCLG are having a laugh to even give this idea some survey airtime. No consumer should be charged £20 under any of these circumstances.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:

Question 19(a): If there is to be a reduced charge, do you think that it should be the £20 as currently implemented in the Industry Code?

STRONGLY DISAGREE

Question 19(b): Please explain your answer.

Rinse and repeat the same reasons (above) or you could use some examples for question 18 and some to support question 19) and tell the MHCLG why they cannot allow this scam.

Question 20(a): How is the first charge provision applied in practice? [Free text]

Who knows - it doesn't matter - because it cannot continue! The idea is a scam based on the car registration and another way to extract the name of the driver from keepers. Appeals cannot be set up to require the keeper to name the driver but this idea has that effect too.

They are assuming that a car is only driven by the same person every time and that is preposterous.

Question 20(b): Bearing in mind your understanding of how the provision is applied in practice - what arguments do you think support the reduced charge applying to only the first parking charge?

No arguments support the 'reduced charge of £20 at all, let alone only applying it for one instance of the vehicle being at a car park. The industry are assuming that a car is only driven by the same person every time and that is preposterous and a moneymaking scam idea.

No arguments support the industry in this made up policy.

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.

Nellymoser

Raised this too. There's no 14 day period for motorists. PCN envelope would need to be date stamped for the 14 day period to be accurately worked out. PCN issue date is not the posting date. Either extend this 14 day period or operators mail server date stamps the envelopes.