Author Topic: HMG publishes "Parking code enforcement framework: consultation response"  (Read 841 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 810
HINT: Because of the way the govt has set out this document it will probably be easier to follow by clicking on this link:

Ministry of Housing,
Communities &
Local Government
Consultation outcome

Parking code enforcement framework: consultation response
Updated 20 March 2021

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government recently consulted on new measures to improve the regulation of the private parking industry.

Parking is a crucial part of our transport infrastructure. We all have an interest in how car parks are managed, especially given the important link between transport accessibility and the vitality of our high streets and town centres.

In response to widespread concerns about the poor practice and behaviour of some parking operators, the government initiated a review into private parking practices in 2015 and supported the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, which was introduced by Sir Greg Knight MP. It will lead to the creation of an independent Code of Practice for private parking companies.

In December 2018, government started work with the British Standards Institution (BSI) to develop the Code of Practice as a British Standard. BSI are the UK’s National Standards Body and are widely recognised as credible experts in regulatory delivery.

The government’s choice of BSI delivered on our promise to listen to industry and consumers and involve them in the design of the new regulation; the process to develop British Standards involves reaching a consensus from a range of key stakeholders, and seeking a wide array of views through a full public consultation.

In August 2020, BSI consulted on a draft Code. The public review for PAS 232, Privately managed parking – Operation and management – Specification, received over 3,000 comments during the 6 week consultation period, covering issues such as signage, accessibility, parking duration and charges. BSI will be working closely with the project’s Steering Group to reach consensus on the draft wording before publication.

The Code, however, is only one part of a wider regulatory framework. In parallel to the BSI consultation on the Code, government consulted on the Code Enforcement Framework and invited views on:

the process for managing appeals against parking charges
the enforcement of the Code of Practice
the establishment of a Scrutiny and Oversight Board
the level of parking charges
an Appeals Charter for motorists to challenge parking charges they believe to be unfair
proposals for a levy on the industry to fund the new Code and framework

This response follows a comprehensive analysis of all respondents’ views. It outlines the responses the government received and how they fed into our policy development. As no consultation is a representative sample, we put weight more on the substantive content than on the percentage of the views expressed. It also provides further clarity on the next steps for the development of the Code of Practice and its Enforcement Framework.

Spring 2021: Work begins on Certification Scheme with United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS).

Spring 2021: Pre-market engagement for single appeals service.

Before summer 2021: Code of Practice complete and transition period begins to allow parking operators to adapt to the new requirements.

Summer 2021: Scrutiny and Oversight Board appointed.

Before the end of 2021: Certification Scheme completed and appeals service supplier appointed. The appeals service will go live within 6 months.

When appeals service supplier is appointed, the transition period ends and parking operators must follow the requirements of the new Code of Practice.

Early 2022: Conformity Assessment Bodies receive UKAS Accreditation and trade associations are awarded Accredited Parking Association (APA) status by Secretary of State.

By mid-2022: Single appeals service goes live.

Breakdown of responses
Overall, the government received 1,000 (applicable) responses to the consultation, of which:

957 were received through the online portal used
31 were email responses
2 were postal responses
Furthermore, we can break this down by respondent type:

individuals – 708
organisations – 282
126 organisations were identified as members of the two private parking trade associations

Chapter 1: Determination of appeals
Q1 Do you agree or disagree that members of APAs should be required to use a single appeals service appointed by the Secretary of State?

Q1.1 Please explain your answer.

Q2 Please provide any other feedback on the determination of appeals, including the funding model and features that an appeal service should offer e.g. telephone or in-person hearings, the ability to submit evidence online.

1. These questions asked respondents for their views on the principle that parking operators should be required to use a single appeals service appointed the Secretary of State. A single appeals service would be a “one stop shop” for parking appeals, meaning that the motorist could appeal a parking charge to the same service regardless of which parking operator issued it.

2. There are currently two trade associations representing parking operators: the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). At the moment, they both offer separate appeals services for their parking operator members. These appeals services are the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) and the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) respectively.

3. Section 7 of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 gives the Secretary of State the power to appoint a single appeals service to handle appeals against private parking charges, if the Code of Practice requires it.

4. A majority of respondents (66%) who answered Q1 were in favour of a single appeals service, while 11% neither agreed or disagreed and 23% were against. Some respondents (40%) felt that it was important to have consistency in how appeals are dealt with in parking cases. This was cited by 47% of those who agreed with a single appeals service and 38% of those who neither agreed nor disagreed.

5. Others responding to this question proposed that creating a single appeals service would ensure a fairer system. In particular they said it would be fairer for motorists and those who may have made genuine mistakes. This was mentioned by 33% those who agreed with the notion of a single appeals service.

6. A small number of respondents (17%) proposed that having a single appeals service raised concerns around competition. They stated that multiple services help improve standards, while also allowing for a diversity of opinion to be present for those appealing. This was cited by 28% of those who had no strong preference and 57% those who disagreed with the single appeals service.

7. The government supports the idea of a single appeals service and intends that the Code of Practice will require the use of an appeals service appointed by the Secretary of State.

8. We do not agree that multiple services will help to improve standards. In the private parking sector, it is the operator not the motorist who chooses the appeals service (the appeals service that is used is determined by which trade association the operator belongs to rather than any consumer choice.) Moreover, a motorist often does not have a choice of car park but is also unable to choose between parking operators, as the latter is employed by the car park owner. In this context, multiple appeals services could create a market failure, incentivising the creation of new appeals services offering more advantageous terms to operators but lower quality and less favourable outcomes for motorists.

9. Instead, a single appeals service will be a guarantee of fairness, consistency and simplicity for all. As part of this, we will ensure that one of the objectives of the single appeals service will be effectiveness and efficiency, as the costs of the service may ultimately be passed on to consumers.

10. We support preserving the current principle that the appeals service should be free to use for motorists and we also recognise that it must be cost-effective for the industry.

11. We intend to conduct further pre-market engagement in spring 2021 before finalising our delivery options for the appeals service. This will include running a product Discovery to better research the needs of the users of the service, which will ensure a high-quality service in which motorists and the industry can have full confidence.

Chapter 2: Enforcing the Code of Practice
Q3 Please provide any comments you have on the proposal to enforce the Code by combining the ATA’s existing audit procedures with additional safeguards.

Q4 Please outline any alternative means by which the Code could be monitored and enforced. You may wish to cite evidence from other regulatory frameworks which are relevant.

12. Parking operators must belong to an operated Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) run by an Accredited Trade Association (ATA) in order to have the ability to request data from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) vehicle register in order to pursue parking charges. If they breach the Code, they risk losing their ability request DVLA data, and therefore will not be able to enforce parking charges through the post where they have no other means of identifying the driver or registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

13. Under the current system of self-regulation, the ATAs are responsible for auditing their members’ compliance with the voluntary industry produced Codes of Practice.

14. In the consultation, we proposed to build on the current system of self-regulation, which involves the parking trade associations auditing their members’ compliance with the existing voluntary codes of practice. Our proposal was to create additional safeguards by engaging the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) to independently assess the ATAs.

15. This would provide greater assurance to the Secretary of State that the ATAs have robust processes to audit their operators’ compliance with the Code of Practice. This will ensure that the Code of Practice leads to higher standards, benefiting motorists, landowners and the industry as a whole.

16. Responses to this section of the consultation were diverse. However, there were several themes that emerged. 27% of respondents to this question suggested that it was important for operators to be audited regularly. 19% agreed that having additional safeguards was a good idea and 18% saw that the additional safeguards being suggested were necessary to ensure that operators were compliant and that non-compliant companies were identified. However, some respondents to this question (14%) felt that the current practices were sufficient.

17. We intend to proceed with our proposal to build on and strengthen the system of ATA auditing.

18. Parking operators will only be able to request data from the DVLA to enforce parking charges if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the ATA itself has robust processes for auditing operators’ compliance with the Code.

19. To be satisfied, we will expect the trade associations to undergo accreditation by UKAS as Conformity Assessment Bodies. Government will produce a Certification Scheme, based on the Code of Practice, which will outline how in practice the requirements of the Code should be measured, tested and assessed. For example, how prospective assessment bodies will evaluate if the content and placing of signage is compliant with the Code, whether the text of parking charge notices meets the new requirements and how the length of consideration and grace periods on a particular site are determined and assessed.

20. Then, UKAS, as an independent body, will assess whether the trade associations have the necessary processes in place to ensure that parking operators comply with the Code. The UKAS accreditation process will involve regular audits and inspections and will provide greater guarantees to government that the new system is robust and rigorous.

21. Government will write the Certification Scheme in consultation with key stakeholders. We expect the Scheme to be completed within 2021, with prospective conformity assessment bodies receiving UKAS accreditation by early 2022, subject to a successful evaluation.

22. Once the new accreditation system is in place, the Secretary of State will designate those parking trade associations who have been accredited by UKAS as Accredited Parking Associations, for the purposes of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, which will entitle their members to request access to data from the DVLA.

Chapter 3: Scrutiny and Oversight Board
Q5 Please provide any feedback you have on the proposed governance arrangements for monitoring the new Code of Practice.

23. In addition to the system of accredited certification by UKAS, the government proposed in the consultation to establish a Scrutiny and Oversight Board, comprising of representatives from MHCLG, DVLA, Devolved Administrations and industry.

24. The Board would oversee the operation of the new oversight system and monitor its effectiveness, including through the gathering and use of relevant data on the private parking sector.

25. Most respondents (66%) approved of the proposed governance arrangements. Some of the primary reasons given were that it would raise standards, introduce greater independence and would improve the public perception of the parking industry. Only 7% of respondents were disapproving of the proposed arrangements, with some feeling that there was already sufficient oversight in the industry through the ATAs and the DVLA.

26. Some respondents (21%) mentioned that they agreed with some or all the functions of the Board and felt they were comprehensive in scope. A similar proportion (20%) mentioned that they agreed with the information and data that was suggested the Board could review. A popular reason given for support was that information would have a positive impact on standards and governance. 20% of responses stressed the importance of having a transparent and independent Board, as this would provide the best scrutiny.

27. A small proportion of respondents (9%) expressed concerns about data collection in the reviewing process. Some (7%) of these suggested further monitoring whilst others (3%) respondents expressed worry over the data which was collected. A popular suggestion for further data collection was the number of claims bought to court by the parking operator in question.

28. Some responses (9%) felt that the representation of the Board was crucial to ensure the process was fair. The most common of these (mentioned by 5% of the total responses) was the feeling that motorists, or organisations representing motorists, must be included on the board.

29. Government intends to appoint a Scrutiny and Oversight Board. It will be an advisory panel to MHCLG and will carry out the functions proposed in the consultation.

30. Then, UKAS, as an independent body, will assess whether the trade associations have the necessary processes in place to ensure that parking operators comply with the Code. The UKAS accreditation process will involve regular audits and inspections and will provide greater guarantees to government that the new system is robust and rigorous.

31. In addition to those functions outlined in the consultation, we intend for the Board to advise the government on the operation of the Code of Practice and the Certification Scheme and provide recommendations on whether these need to be updated. We anticipate that the Board would review the Code of Practice every two years to ensure that it is up to date with developments in the industry, and the Scheme when required.

32. We intend for the Board to be composed of representatives from MHCLG, DVLA, Devolved Administrations and industry. In addition, in reflection of respondents’ views that motorists should be represented, we will appoint a suitable organisation to the Board to give expression to this interest. We also intend for the appeals service to have representation on the Board to improve information and data flows, ensuring efficient monitoring of the sector.

33. In relation to the data and information collected by the Board, government is preparing a data strategy for the enforcement of the Code. It will provide an outline of relevant data and identify opportunities to maximise the value of that data, reflecting on the principles in the National Data Strategy.


Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 810

Chapter 4: The level of parking charges
Q6 Which parking charge system is most appropriate for private parking? a) the Three-tiered system
b) Mirroring the Local Authority system

Q6.1 Please explain your answer. You may, for example, wish to make reference to other deterrent frameworks (for example, for railway tickets or traffic violations).

Q7 What level of discount is appropriate: 40% as is currently offered in private parking and suggested in the three-tiered system, or 50% as is offered in Local Authority parking?
a) 40%
b) 50%

Q7.1 Please explain your answer, including whether the discount should be set at a different level.

Q8 How should the level of parking charges be set and how should the levels be revised in future?

34. Currently, private parking charges are capped at £100 by the ATAs. Regardless of how serious the breach of terms and conditions, any breach will attract the same charge in a given car park.

35. In the consultation response, we asked respondents for views on a Three-tier system, with the charge level set by the severity of the breach, and the possibility of Mirroring the Local Authority system for Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). The latter also distinguishes between more and less serious breaches, and sets a higher charge for London.

36. Overall, 81% of respondents who answered question 6 supported the three-tier system, with 19% supporting Mirroring the Local Authority rate.

37. 49% of respondents, when asked to explain their answer, spoke of the need for the parking charge to be proportionate to the nature of the breach. 14% of respondents in suggested that the system must be able to protect disabled parking bays and areas where parking is prohibited from misuse.

38. Overall, 10% of respondents stated that the parking charges system should be clear and simple for motorists to understand and for the parking industry to implement. Of those who supported mirroring the Local Authority system, 24% gave this reason for their answer.

39. 9% of respondents argued that private parking charges should be consistent with other systems already in use. Of those who preferred the option of mirroring the Local Authority rates, 33% cited this reason in support of their preference.

40. The consultation also asked respondents to choose between a 40% and a 50% discount for early payment of parking charges (Q7). 75% of respondents preferred the 40% discount and 25% opted for the 50% discount.

41. Some respondents (42%) said that regardless of what the level that the discount was set, it should still be high enough to act as a sufficient deterrent to motorists and should be higher than the original parking tariff owed.

42. We also asked respondents how parking charges should be set and reviewed in future (Q8). 36% of respondents stated that it was important that there be regular reviews to ensure that the level of charges remained a sufficient deterrent. 27% said in particular that charges should be adjusted in line with inflation.

43. We have considered the comments raised about both systems and have designed an approach that best responds to the issues raised in the consultation, set out at paragraph 54.

44. There was strong support for the principle that the parking charge should be proportionate to the nature of the breach. The Local Authority system of upper and lower tiers already delivers on this principle and is well understood by motorists. Therefore, we intend to bring private parking charges into closer alignment with Local Authority PCNs, including its system of 50% discounts for early payment and the distinction between London and Outside London.

45. In London, the new parking charge caps will mirror Local Authority Band A. This means that on all types of private land (for example, customer car parks, residents’ car parks or private land where parking is not invited), more serious breaches can attract a charge of up to £130, while less serious breaches are liable to receive a charge of up to £80.

46. Outside of London, we will mirror Local Authority Band 2 for the majority of private car parking spaces: car parks where parking is invited, either to any member of the public or to customers of public-facing business e.g. supermarkets or shopping centres. On these types of land, more serious breaches of the terms and conditions can incur a parking charge of up to £70 and less serious breaches up to £50.

47. The Scottish Government intends to align with the approach of bringing private parking charges closer to the principles of the Local Authority system. The approach in Wales will be confirmed as part of the process to finalise the Code of Practice.

48. The exceptions outside of London are on land where parking is not invited or is restricted (often through the use of permits) to specific groups, for example private residents or staff. In these cases, the current £100 cap will apply. This is in recognition that these types of land have no direct analogue in the Local Authority system and of the importance of balancing the rights of motorists with those of private landowners.

49. The government’s plans for parking charges will be reflected in the new Code of Practice. We will work with stakeholders on the further detail, including which breaches will be contained with the higher and lower tiers and the process for determining the appropriate level of the parking charge caps on individual car park sites.

50. However, indicative examples of a more serious breach include parking where parking is not permitted or is causes danger or detriment to others (for example, in front of a fire escape or blocking an ambulance bay). Less serious breaches include the overstay of maximum free period or paid-for tariff or parking in a space for parking in bays for other classes of vehicles such as motorcycles or scooters, bicycles or taxis.

51. In recognition of respondents’ views that any system should protect Blue Badge holders, parking in a Blue Badge bay when not eligible to will attract the higher charge in London of £130. Outside of London, abuse of a Blue Badge will not be reduced to £70 but will instead remain at the current £100 to provide a strong deterrent.

52. In keeping with creating greater consistency, parking operators will be required to offer a 50% discount. As respondents have argued, however, the discounted rate must still be higher than any tariff owed. Therefore, if the tariff owed is higher than the discounted level of the parking charge, payment of the full tariff may be sought.

53. Many car parks for designated groups only will be enforced using the permits. We are aware that there can be problems with permits, such as motorists receiving parking charges when a permit has recently expired or if it has been forgotten. These instances are covered in more detail by the Appeals Charter (Chapter 5).

54. Overall, the system will contain the following set of parking charge caps, illustrated by the following examples:

Private ground level or multi-storey car park
Type of breach   Parking charge cap outside London (50% discount applies if paid within 14 days)   Parking charge cap in London (50% discount applies if paid within 14 days)
Overstaying free or paid period   £50   £80
Not paying at all   £50 or tariff owed, whichever is higher   £80 or tariff owed, whichever is higher
Abusing a Blue Badge bay   £100   £130
Entering a wrong vehicle registration number   £0-20 with the Appeals Charter   £0-20 with the Appeals Charter
Publicly-accessible customer car park
Type of breach   Parking charge cap outside London (50% discount applies if paid within 14 days)   Parking charge cap in London (50% discount applies if paid within 14 days)
Overstaying free or paid period   £50 or tariff owed, whichever is higher   £80 or tariff owed, whichever is higher
Not paying at all   £50 or tariff owed, whichever is higher   £80 or tariff owed, whichever is higher
Abusing a Blue Badge bay   £100   £130
Entering a wrong vehicle registration number (with evidence it is a genuine mistake)   £0-20 with the Appeals Charter   £0-20 with the Appeals Charter
Residents’ permit-only car park
Type of breach   Parking charge cap outside London (50% discount applies if paid within 14 days)   Parking charge cap in London (50% discount applies if paid within 14 days)
Parking when not a resident   £100   £130
Land on which parking is not permitted
Type of breach   Parking charge cap outside London (50% discount applies if paid within 14 days)   Parking charge cap in London (50% discount applies if paid within 14 days)
Parking   £100   £130
No stopping’ zone e.g. in an airport road
Type of breach   Parking charge cap outside London (50% discount applies if paid within 14 days)   Parking charge cap in London (50% discount applies if paid within 14 days)
Stopping   £100   £130
55. We intend for the level of parking charges to be reviewed as part of the general review of the Code of Practice by the Scrutiny and Oversight Board which will take place every two years.

56. In all of the cases mentioned above, the Code of Practice will introduce higher standards to ensure that signage clearly displays the price (if parking is paid for) and the terms and conditions of parking, and consequences for any breach of the terms. This means that motorists will be fully informed when making a decision about whether and where to park.

Chapter 5: Appeals Charter
Q9 Do you agree or disagree in principle with the idea of the Appeals Charter?

Q9.1 Please explain your answer.

Q10 Do you agree or not that the examples given in the Appeals Charter are fair and appropriate?

Q10.1 Please explain your answer. You may wish, for example, to suggest additional cases to be covered in an Appeals Charter or query existing examples.

57. Building on industry best practice, the government asked for respondents’ views on the concept of an Appeals Charter to ensure fairness, public confidence, transparency, proportionality and improved standards in the private parking sector.

58. The Appeals Charter is a statement of the way certain grounds of appeal based on innocent error or mitigating circumstances will be handled by the parking operator. It is intended as a safety net to ensure that responsible motorists who overstay or make an error are not penalised unfairly for doing so.

59. The vast majority of respondents (at least 80%) were in agreement with the Appeals Charter. The themes and views below are, therefore, largely reflective of this viewpoint.

60. The most popular response (40% of respondents) was that the introduction of an Appeals Charter would create a fairer system. Additionally, there was a feeling (from 11%) that the appeals charter would help to minimise and reduce the issues faced by motorists. A majority of these mentioned that this would help reduce charges for genuine mistakes, as the parking companies would be more considerate in issuing charges. A popular comment was that, alongside the benefits for motorists, the reduction in issues for motorists could improve the industry’s reputation in the press. 39% of respondents agreed with the examples given in the Appeals Charter, with reasons stated including that they were fair, sensible and provided an allowance for honest mistakes. Overall, 42% of respondents felt that the driver would be treated fairly under an Appeals Charter based on the examples given for possible appeals in the consultation.

61. Some respondents (15%) felt there was room for additional exemptions or gave further examples for inclusion. Some popular suggestions were: thorough explanation of what constitutes mitigation and parking tickets falling off the dashboard.

62. A smaller number of respondents (8%) also found issue with some, or all, of the examples given. Those examples most found issue were: the failure to display permit; and non-evidenced mitigation. It was felt that both of these examples were too rife for consistent abuse and misuse.

63. Some respondents (16%) flagged the issue of addressing the alleged abuse of parking permits. It was felt that with the examples given there was too much of an opportunity for abuse, a commonly mentioned example being families sharing blue/visitor badges when only one is entitled to it.

64. Based on the consultation response, our intention is that the Code will require operators to sign up to a single Appeals Charter. This will outline the process they will have to follow for appeals on the grounds of innocent error or mitigating circumstances.

65. We will work with key industry and motoring stakeholders to finalise the design of the Appeals Charter, including how to address the concerns raises around permits.

66. However, at a minimum the Appeals Charter will cover the issues outlined in the consultation, including keying errors, breakdowns, mitigating, pay & display tickets, permits and Blue Badges.

Chapter 6: Levy
Q11 Do you agree or disagree that the parking industry should contribute towards the cost of the regulation?

Q11.1 Please explain your answer.

67. As outlined in the consultation, Section 7 of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act allows the raising of a levy for the purposes of meeting the costs of the new regulation. These costs include the development and enforcement of the Code and costs associated with the appeals service.

68. Most respondents to this question (62%) felt that as car park operators benefit financially from parking enforcement, they should then contribute to the cost of introducing higher standards. A small proportion of respondents to this question (17%) had the view that there should be no public money being used to fund the new Code.

69. A group of respondents (16%) felt that neither car park operators nor motorists should be fully responsible for financing the cost of regulation. Instead they believed that these two groups should bear this burden together in some format.

70. There was more support for this from those who agreed (11%) with the notion of parking industry contributing than those who disagreed (4%). However, the driving force behind the view that the burden should be shared was those who neither agreed or disagreed with it, with 31% of that cohort taking this view.

71. A few of those responding to this question (14%) were of the view that the parking industry should contribute as long as the costs were appropriate and transparent. 13% of respondents felt that it was not necessary to introduce a new levy or additional regulations, in particular if current requirements were carried out properly. Support for this primarily came from those who disagreed with the idea of the parking industry contributing to the costs of regulation, with 31% of this group saying this.

72. The government is supportive of the principle, reflected in the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, that the industry should contribute towards the costs of the new Code, its enforcement and the appeals service.

73. We intend to raise a levy, subject to HMT approval, no more than annually, on the parking trade associations, who will be responsible for collecting it from their members. The levy would be raised by a statutory instrument, following the negative procedure.

74. We envisage that the levy will be split between the trade associations according to the parking related turnover of their members. This ensures that larger parking operators contribute more towards the costs of the new system, limiting the burden on Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4420
  • THE lowest common denominator
You know that the industry is properly pissed off when the both ATAs (BPA Ltd and IPC Ltd who were mortal enemies until now), band together to publish predictions of the end of civilisation if they are not allowed to operate at the levels where they can make outrageous profits.  :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:



23 MAR 2021

Government consultation response heralds the end of free parking for everyone

The two trade associations representing UK parking operators have expressed serious concern following publication of the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government’s response (20 March 2021) to the recent consultation to the enforcement framework for the forthcoming new Parking Code.  The British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC) say the response in its current form is not sustainable and will have a negative impact on the economic recovery, lead to higher parking charges for all responsible motorists and encourage a return of rogue operators who will act outside of the Code of Practice. 

Much of the concern centres on the government’s decision to ignore the need for the parking charge to deter selfish parking. A deterrent level of parking charge for those motorists who park selfishly, coupled with an Appeals Charter, as put forward by the industry, is necessary for effective management of private land. The government’s limited approach is unworkable and unsustainable.

Over 80% of the public supported the industry’s approach, which was put forward as part of the BSI and MHCLG consultations to meet the specific objectives originally set out in Sir Greg Knight’s Private Members Bill.

The BPA and the IPC have both welcomed the introduction of the Parking Code of Practice Act 2019 to further improve the private parking industry but say that ignoring overwhelming public support for fair and proportionate parking charges renders the consultation process completely redundant.

They understand the government’s desire to put a cap on parking charges levied by the private parking companies and the popular demands to align them with the penalty charges used in the public sector but in the context of government’s overall proposal this is unworkable. Car park owners may now be forced to charge for previously free parking in order to cover their costs controlling abuse by a small number of selfish and irresponsible motorists.

It is incomprehensible to propose reducing them and especially at a time when there is more than enough evidence to show that the statutory penalty charges in the public sector are an insufficient deterrent. Witness the events of last summer at Britain’s tourism hotspots where motorists in their droves almost universally ignored parking controls.

The BPA and IPC go on to say that the government’s proposed approach risks a significant increase in selfish parking, depriving responsible motorists of readily accessible and convenient parking for shops, hospitals, residential developments, major leisure venues, centres of education and transport hubs. It would also risk squeezing out legitimate parking operators so that motorists are left at the mercy of rogue operators, who will be incentivised to operate without requesting DVLA data as part of their enforcement operations.

It would be unfortunate if the laudable intentions of Sir Greg Knight, and the significant collaboration between government and the parking sector these past two years led to a significant decline in compliance with existing parking rules, and higher parking charges for most motorists who will be at the mercy of more rogue operators. That cannot be the government’s intention and we call upon it to rethink its proposals. The BPA and IPC stand ready to work with government on delivering a parking service that is fair to everyone.

Ends - for immediate release

Offline 2b1ask1

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 206
Bring it on...

I foolishly parked at the Dalson Cross shopping centre last week to nip in to buy lunch. I thought I could take advantage of the 10 minutes free parking offered. Being in a van with a roof rack I parked in the open area. 10 minutes seems quite generous till you realise the access is up the longest ramp in the world, the shops are then another 200m on and despite spending less than a minute coosing lunch, I returned to the pay station at 13 minutes! the price of not running?

£3.50 minimum 1 hour thank you sir! Fecking yee-ha!
Willing to do my bit...


Supporters of the NoToMob

In order to view this object you need Flash Player 9+ support!

Get Adobe Flash player