Public consultation – Question 33 – Suggested Response

antigrifter

Hi all,

Below are my thoughts on what's missing from the public consultation. If you agree, feel free to submit it in section Q33. If you are not planning to complete the forms, submitting just this in Q33 would only take you 3 minutes and would hopefully help make this country a better place to live.

Concerns Regarding the Private Parking Industry

I wish to highlight the following areas of concern in relation to the operation of the private parking industry:

a) Inadequate protection against erroneous and unreasonable Parking Charge Notices (PCNs):
Errors arising from Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology, the disregard of mandatory grace periods, the use of non-compliant signage, and the enforcement of “no stopping” restrictions without adequate warning all contribute to unfair and disproportionate enforcement practices.

b) Disproportionate impact on vulnerable and disadvantaged motorists:
Erroneous PCNs can have a particularly harmful impact on motorists who lack the means to navigate complex appeals processes or secure legal assistance. Such individuals are often pressured into paying unjustified charges simply to avoid escalating costs, stress, and uncertainty.

c) Risks relating to data misuse and criminal exploitation:
The current framework permits the collection and onward transfer of citizens’ personal data by the DVLA to private operators on the basis of submissions that are frequently unverifiable and often fail to withstand judicial scrutiny. This creates opportunities for the targeting of vehicle owners by organised crime while affording private operators a degree of plausible deniability.

d) Abuse of the small claims process:
There is evidence that a significant proportion of cases brought before the small claims courts—estimated in some reports to be as high as one third—are bulk submissions from private parking firms. Many of these claims are standardised, consist of brief particulars of claim, and are frequently unverified, in contravention of pre-action protocols or established court procedures. This practice imposes a considerable burden on the justice system.

---

Recommendations for Policy Reform

1. Minimum standards for sign legibility
All signage used by private parking operators should comply with the government’s Traffic Signs Manual, including established rules on legibility and font size calculations. Motorists should not be penalised for failing to comply with signage that does not meet the same clarity and visibility standards required of official road signs.

2. Stricter controls on access to DVLA data
A points-based regulatory system should be introduced to strengthen accountability. Private parking operators who lose cases in court would incur points, with repeated failures resulting in suspension of access to DVLA data for a defined period. Persistent unlawful access to DVLA data, in breach of GDPR, should be treated as a criminal offence, with liability extending to company directors. A central points register should be maintained by the DVLA and made publicly accessible to ensure transparency.

3. Strengthened obligations in the appeals process
Private parking operators should face financial penalties where they fail to properly investigate appeals or provide substantive, case-specific responses. The widespread practice of issuing boilerplate replies undermines both fairness and due process. Such penalties should be prescribed in legislation and may be awarded either during the appeals process or by the courts.

4. Introduction of a warning mechanism prior to PCN issuance
To minimise errors and reduce unjustified harassment of motorists, the first alleged contravention within any 12-month period should result in a formal warning rather than a PCN, except where aggravating circumstances apply.

5. Transparency in the use of DVLA data
Vehicle keepers should be notified each time their personal data is accessed via the DVLA, with full details of the requesting party and the stated justification. Private parking operators are civil litigants, not law enforcement authorities, and should not be afforded powers equivalent to those of the police.

6. Automatic compensation for repeated unjustified PCNs
Where a private parking operator issues more than two PCNs to the same individual within a 12-month period, and those notices are subsequently dismissed on appeal or in court, the motorist should automatically receive compensation for harassment. This would serve as a deterrent against speculative or unfounded enforcement.

Castle

antigrifter said:

Hi all,

Below are my thoughts on what's missing from the public consultation. If you agree, feel free to submit it in section Q33. If you are not planning to complete the forms, submitting just this in Q33 would only take you 3 minutes and would hopefully help make this country a better place to live.

Recommendations for Policy Reform

5. Transparency in the use of DVLA data

Vehicle keepers should be notified each time their personal data is accessed via the DVLA, with full details of the requesting party and the stated justification. Private parking operators are civil litigants, not law enforcement authorities, and should not be afforded powers equivalent to those of the police.

This one is important considering how many NTK's go missing.

Although, if the RK's address is out of date, it may not work so well in practice. (Perhaps DVLA should ask for an email address/phone number for RK's when the vehicle is taxed each year).

1505grandad

Just a thought (if not covered elsewhere) -  assuming that landowners are not stupid enough to sign a contract forbidding them to cancel a customers pcn then the ppc should not refuse to abide by landowners instructions to cancel. 

Coupon-mad

This is all very useful, thanks! I will add more guidance to the main Public Consultation thread tomorrow.

A couple of days ago something else was suggested on a thread and I can't recall what it was. Anyone?

Le_Kirk

Castle said:

antigrifter said:

Recommendations for Policy Reform

5. Transparency in the use of DVLA data

Vehicle keepers should be notified each time their personal data is accessed via the DVLA, with full details of the requesting party and the stated justification. Private parking operators are civil litigants, not law enforcement authorities, and should not be afforded powers equivalent to those of the police.

This one is important considering how many NTK's go missing.

Although, if the RK's address is out of date, it may not work so well in practice. (Perhaps DVLA should ask for an email address/phone number for RK's when the vehicle is taxed each year).

We know how many times we read that addresses are not up-to-date on the V5C with DVLA and I have voiced my concern regarding how motorists are able to tax their vehicle if they do not receive a V11 because the DVLA do not have their current address.  Asking motorists to register a telephone number of email address to be used as suggested above is a good idea but is it adding another burdensome layer of bureaucracy?

Castle

Le_Kirk said:

Castle said:

antigrifter said:

Recommendations for Policy Reform

5. Transparency in the use of DVLA data

Vehicle keepers should be notified each time their personal data is accessed via the DVLA, with full details of the requesting party and the stated justification. Private parking operators are civil litigants, not law enforcement authorities, and should not be afforded powers equivalent to those of the police.

This one is important considering how many NTK's go missing.

Although, if the RK's address is out of date, it may not work so well in practice. (Perhaps DVLA should ask for an email address/phone number for RK's when the vehicle is taxed each year).

We know how many times we read that addresses are not up-to-date on the V5C with DVLA and I have voiced my concern regarding how motorists are able to tax their vehicle if they do not receive a V11 because the DVLA do not have their current address.  Asking motorists to register a telephone number of email address to be used as suggested above is a good idea but is it adding another burdensome layer of bureaucracy?

They can tax their vehicles via Direct Debit so no current address is required.

If you tax your vehicle by credit/debit card you have the option to give the DVLA an email address if you want a receipt-takes 5 seconds.