Parking Code of Practice Consultation 2025 - now let's see what happens

Kaizen2024

daveyjp said:

Local Authorities work under a legal framework designed for public benefit with proper scrutiny and appeals process.

Just saying.

As will the private sector in due course.

Kaizen2024

FYI, a Local Authority escalation process is:

• The initial charge is payable within 28 days.
• If payment is not made within 28 days, a Charge Certificate (CC) is issued and the debt is increased by 50%
• If payment is not made after 14 days from CC, an Order for Recovery is issued and the debt is increased by £9.
• If the Order for Recovery is not paid, at the compliance stage another £75 is added; then another £235 is added if a bailiff has to attend.

All without any tracing or hearing, so the Private Sector process is a bargain in comparison.

Coupon-mad

Kaizen2024 said:

FYI, a Local Authority escalation process is:

• The initial charge is payable within 28 days.
• If payment is not made within 28 days, a Charge Certificate (CC) is issued and the debt is increased by 50%
• If payment is not made after 14 days from CC, an Order for Recovery is issued and the debt is increased by £9.
• If the Order for Recovery is not paid, at the compliance stage another £75 is added; then another £235 is added if a bailiff has to attend.

All without any tracing or hearing, so the Private Sector process is a bargain in comparison.

We know the LA process.

But the private parking sector isn't being run like LA penalties. It's not the DFT in charge (thank heavens) it's the MHCLG and they know these charges aren't penalties.

They have been sensible enough to differentiate the private parking Code in many ways from LA Penalties, including by the (sensible IMHO) simplified decision not to have higher and lower breach bands and not to allow higher PCs in undefined 'London'.

Thus no changes to signs will be needed and we can crack on. Good.

The current rip-off private parking process is:

• The initial charge is payable within 28 days.
• If payment is not made within 28 days, there should be two reminders (at PCN full rate) before any escalation, but the BPA binned that ever-present Code 'best practice' in 2024 when they got into bed with the IPC.
• If payment is not made, PPCs and DRAs add £70 per PCN. Therefore, if there are 10 PCNs (rarely seen in the LA sector but in private parking, an eye-watering 44% of cases that go to DRAs include 3 PCNs or more) that's £700 reward for sending a poxy LBC and refusing to hear disputes.
• If the laughable £170 charge isn't paid, a claim form is issued with £85 fees added, plus £50 in legal fees and 8% interest. Average single PCN claims are for £270.
• If the Claim is not paid, a default CCJ is issued and £22 is added.
• Then at the compliance stage another £75 is added; then another £235 is added if a bailiff has to attend (and if you are DCB Ltd they add c£200 instead of the capped £75, because they can).

Your contention that the LA process is a 'bargain'. A bargain for whom? You mean it costs your lot so much more?

What, at pre-action stage it costs a fortune to send one automated LBC for ten PCNs does it, so you're going to try to tell us that DRAs should be able to recoup £700 for zero service?

How do you explain ParkingEye v Beavis where £85 covered 'all costs of the operation' plus it generated a four figure weekly profit which was so high the ill gotten gains were shared at an average £1000 per week with the landowner?

How do you explain DCB Legal settling cases at £10 at mediation?

Doesn't fit with your analysis.

Umkomaas

At least LA penalty income stays within it. It doesn't find its way, as with private parking charge income, to Australia or America or Japan or other parts of the globe, or into the back pocket of a former football hooligan, or others with past criminal records, or pay for Bentleys and Range Rovers, or yachts or helicopters. 

Ralph-y

CM ..... can I we (other forumites) use this wording ? to instruct now posters  .... or should the request be a looser / own  wording ?

It's very important that people like you tell the Government that:

a) you have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be the SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 *almost* promised. That will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court.

b).  THAT THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. DISPUTED CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND ENGINEERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN'.

c). Tell them about your experience. Your claim. How horrific all this is for motorists.

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

LoneStarState

Kaizen2024 said:

daveyjp said:

Local Authorities work under a legal framework designed for public benefit with proper scrutiny and appeals process.

Just saying.

As will the private sector in due course.

Glad you agree the private parking sector currently does not work for public benefit, is not under proper scrutiny nor has a proper appeal process for either ATA.

Additionally with respect to LA penalties, whilst there is an escalation in amounts owed, a very low cost stat declaration can reset the PCN back to the original penalty amount in valid cases.  Also PCNs at the bailiff stage do not come attached with a CCJ that wrecks your credit rating for 6 years.

Coupon-mad

Ralph-y said:

CM ..... can I we (other forumites) use this wording ? to instruct now posters  .... or should the request be a looser / own  wording ?

It's very important that people like you tell the Government that:

a) you have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be the SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 *almost* promised. That will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court.

b).  THAT THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. DISPUTED CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND ENGINEERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN'.

c). Tell them about your experience. Your claim. How horrific all this is for motorists.

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

Sure!

But we do need to talk about all the questions. Must admit I have not properly read it all yet.

Even without reading it in detail I'd suggest the two main points to attack are:

1.  The MHCLG must must must set up or appoint an IMPARTIAL single appeals service, funded by the industry. Not two appeals services, involved in a race to the bottom and where one is owned by Will Hurley Ltd, can't be bothered to issue proper Annual Reports and only upholds appeals for consumers in a woeful 4% of cases. Which rather gives the game away!

2.  There must be a ban on DRA fees: we need to challenge the MHCLG's odd analysis about this that seems to say that DRAs only 'break even' if £26 is added. Not only has this over-complicated economic analysis document ignored that the minor costs of two extra letters are already well covered by an £85 PC (proved by the Beavis case) but it also makes some plainly wrong statements, such as 'any lower than £26 and more cases will go to court' (something like that) which is laughably wrong because it is the added fee that enables the race to court.

Well (assuming £26 is right, which is highly doubtful) a DRA can take £30 as commission from the PCN sum then, and return the balance to the PPC, like a debt factor does.

In cases where the DRA discovers a new address or named driver (PCN re-issued) or circumstances that fit the appeals charter (PCN cancelled) they'll have to work out a fee system that works within the industry to make DRAs briefly handling these cases sustainable. 

More people would pay if DRA fees are banned (only 14% get duped into paying DRAs now. Compare that to the 'up to 67%' who used to pay DR Plus when they took 15% commission plus VAT, a few years ago).

And PPCs would be deterred from farming cases so swiftly out to a third party, if it was clear they would make less money ... and could easily seek full payment by issuing fair and timely reminders themselves.

PPCs don't have to use a DRA at all.

Nellymoser

MP Abtisam Mohamed is encouraging as many people to respond outlining their concerns.

https://x.com/Abtisam_Mohamed/status/1943692112018464792

"My own view is that the proposed changes do little to protect people from low-income backgrounds. The cap should be much lower than £100 and offering a 40% discount pressures motorists into paying, rather than exploring their options to appeal."

"Finally, the burden of debt recovery fees should not be placed on motorists, whatever the cost, and should be scrapped altogether."

"I urge my constituents to engage with the consultation."

Kaizen2024

Compare that to the 'up to 67%' who used to pay DR Plus when they took 15% commission plus VAT).

What is the source of this data please? For parking debt, not commercial debt.

daveyjp

LoneStarState said:

Kaizen2024 said:

daveyjp said:

Local Authorities work under a legal framework designed for public benefit with proper scrutiny and appeals process.

Just saying.

As will the private sector in due course.

Additionally with respect to LA penalties, whilst there is an escalation in amounts owed, a very low cost stat declaration can reset the PCN back to the original penalty amount in valid cases.  Also PCNs at the bailiff stage do not come attached with a CCJ that wrecks your credit rating for 6 years.

Indeed,  a friend has just had final demand papers for a clean air zone penalty.  He appealed (at no cost) as he had received no paperwork and wasn't aware of CAZ.  He normally drives a car which is exempt, but on this occasion was in his wife's 20 year old pick up which isn't.

The PCN has been reissued and he will pay the original discounted fee.