Prime Minister Andy Burnham has announced a new Private Parking Code of Practice, intended to end what he described as "rip-off" parking charges that have left motorists facing excessive fines and debt. The move comes after incidents like that of Rosey Greenwood, who was initially told to pay £1,906 for exceeding parking time limits at a Derby car park. Greenwood had paid for parking each time but unknowingly violated a rule requiring payment within five minutes of entering the car park. Her case was raised in Parliament by Derby North MP Catherine Atkinson, who labeled the charges as "five-minute rip-off charges."
The parking sector itself has already updated its code of practice to ban the five-minute payment rule. However, the government is now reinforcing these changes with a statutory code that carries legal weight.
Scrutiny of the New Code
While the government touts the new code as a significant improvement, some elements appear similar to the existing sector code. For instance, both codes guarantee drivers a minimum five-minute "consideration period" to decide whether to park. Additionally, both provide a 10-minute grace period to leave a car park after the permitted stay has ended. The maximum parking charge remains £100, or £60 if paid within two weeks, consistent with the sector's code.
A key provision in the government's code mandates that parking charges should be reduced to £20 on appeal under specific circumstances: not displaying a valid permit, incorrectly entering a vehicle registration, not entering a registration at all, and not displaying a Blue Badge despite being eligible. These reductions were already part of the sector's code.
However, the government's code introduces more substantial changes regarding appeals for circumstances outside a driver's control. Charges can now be cancelled if a driver or passenger experiences illness, is delayed by an overrunning medical appointment, faces childcare issues, or if the vehicle breaks down. Previously, the sector's code allowed for these charges to be reduced to £20, rather than cancelled.
Enforcement and Oversight
Operators who fail to comply with the new code risk losing access to DVLA vehicle keeper data, which would prevent them from issuing parking charges. This measure is intended to be more robust than the current system, where operators are theoretically meant to lose trade association membership for rule breaches, a system campaigners argue has not been effective.
The government is also establishing a "fully independent Scrutiny and Oversight Board" to monitor compliance. Jack Cousens, head of roads policy at the AA, noted that the new code's strength lies in its government backing and independent oversight, shifting the power to set and change the rules from the industry to the government.
Industry and Campaigner Reactions
Both the AA and RAC have welcomed the statutory code, which they had campaigned for, but believe it does not go far enough. The AA advocates for a single, independent appeals process and an alternative to debt recovery fees, which can significantly inflate initial charges. The RAC shares these concerns, particularly regarding the inclusion of debt recovery fees, which can escalate into threats of court action and County Court Judgments, as seen in the cases of Greenwood and Hannah Robinson, who was asked to pay £11,390.
The government has stated it will consult on private parking debt recovery fees in the new year, considering capping or scrapping them entirely. Parking campaigner Lynda Eagan expressed skepticism, suggesting the changes are minor tweaks that will not significantly reduce the number of parking charge notices issued.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government countered these claims, emphasizing the statutory force and independent oversight of the new code, and highlighting the significant changes to fairer appeals. The British Parking Association and the International Parking Community (IPC) are reviewing the code, with the BPA stating it strikes a balance between motorist protection and effective parking management. The IPC noted that changes must remain fair to motorists while being workable for operators.