Closed call for evidence

Private parking charges and debt recovery fees: Call for evidence

Updated 24 August 2023

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Basic information

Topic and scope of this call for evidence

The government is developing a code of practice for the private parking industry in accordance with the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. This call for evidence forms part of the government’s review of parking charges that are issued for a perceived contravention of the terms and conditions of a car park (as distinct from the parking tariff payable at car parks that are not free), and debt recovery fees, in the private parking industry. It seeks to gather further evidence to:

1. assess the effectiveness of existing industry limits ^{[footnote 1]}
2. test assumptions made in the draft impact assessment that accompanies this call for evidence
3. where relevant, strengthen the evidence underpinning that impact assessment

Any evidence gathered may be used to update the impact assessment, and potentially the proposals set out. Following this, the government plans to consult on options for private parking charges and debt recovery fees before taking decisions on those.

The government wishes to give interested parties a fair and reasonable opportunity to provide information or evidence which may be material to the formulation of options to put to consultation; and/or to the consultation process regarding private parking charges and debt recovery fees referred to above.

This call for evidence identifies specific areas in which the government would be assisted by any additional evidence which can be provided. However, this document is not intended to be proscriptive; if respondents – having considered this document and the draft Impact Assessment published with it – think that they have material evidence or information which does not relate directly to the matters identified in this call for evidence they are asked to take this opportunity to submit that information or evidence.

This call for evidence and the specific requests for further evidence below should not be understood to mean that if no additional material evidence is forthcoming then the government would be unable to formulate options, carry out a fair consultation on those options or in due course to take a decision on what to do with respect to parking charges and debt recovery fees. This call for evidence is a step to allow those who are interested in decision making in this area to have a reasonable and fair opportunity to assist the government by improving the available evidence.

Draft impact assessment

Who is this for:

The government is keen to ensure that any further additional evidence which is material to the impact assessment is gathered through this call for evidence, therefore responses from all interested parties are invited and welcomed.

However, this call for evidence is technical in nature and is likely to be of most interest to those involved specifically in the private parking industry who are likely to be best placed to assist the government with relevant evidence.

Body/bodies responsible for the consultation:

Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

Duration:

This call for evidence launches on 30 July 2023 and runs for 10 weeks, closing on 8 October 2023.

Enquiries:

For any enquiries about the call for evidence please contact: Parking@levellingup.gov.uk

How to respond:

Please email your response to the questions in this call for evidence to parking@levellingup.gov.uk.

If you are responding in writing, please make it clear which questions you are responding to. Written responses should be sent to:

Private Parking Charges and Debt Recovery Fees Call for Evidence
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
3rd Floor, Southeast, Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Ministerial foreword

There are few of life’s daily bugbears that, irrespective of background or politics, can be as frustrating as parking.

From driving around in endless loops looking for a space to worrying if you’re going to be charged an arm and a leg for the privilege, private parking can feel like the wild west.

Different rules in the same postcode, impenetrable terms and conditions that feel less like a service than a trap to catch people out. Machines that lead to fines for drivers for confusing an O with an 0.

We’re rightly moving, as a society, to greener forms of transport, but most people in the UK – 35 million – still rely on their car to get around. Unfair charges bite at the best of times, but especially so with current cost of living pressures.

They deserve better – and so, too, do our high streets and businesses which depend on good quality parking to generate custom and thrive.

We’re acting to put this right by introducing a new private parking code of practice that will raise standards and put the brakes on rogue practices.

Most motorists do not choose to break the rules deliberately and this code will make sure fewer are penalised unfairly; tackling issues like the use of confusing and misleading signage and the lack of reasonable consideration and grace periods.

The result? A simpler, fairer, clearer system that does more to protect motorists and save them money.

Before officially introducing the code, we must ensure that we set parking charges and debt recovery fees at a level that strikes a balance between fairness and compliance.

And it’s in this spirit that we are putting out a call for evidence to drivers and the parking industry in the coming weeks to better understand the implications of decisions to be taken on parking charges and debt recovery fees.

We want to see more people being able to park with peace of mind. More people shopping locally.

More common sense in our approach to parking and supporting communities and businesses, especially in difficult times.

Our new code of practice takes us a step closer to achieving this in the interests of both drivers and the parking industry.

Dehenna Davison MP
Parliamentary-Under Secretary of State for Levelling Up

Background and context for this call for evidence

The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 requires the Secretary of State in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) to publish a code of practice containing guidance about the operation and management of private parking facilities, containing among other things:

• guidance that promotes good practice in the operation and management of private parking facilities
• guidance about appeals against parking charges imposed by, or on behalf of, persons providing private parking facilities

Parking on private land is largely managed under contract law. When a driver enters and decides to park on a site owned or managed by a parking operator, they are held to have accepted and entered into a contract with that operator. The terms and conditions displayed on signs on the site represent the basis of that contract.

When a driver or registered vehicle keeper is served with a parking charge (as distinct from the parking tariff payable at car parks that are not free), it is for a perceived contravention of the terms and conditions of that contract. In law, this represents an invoice for a breach of contract, which can be enforceable through the small claims court.

There is evidence to suggest that the current system of private parking regulation is not fit for purpose. Key indicators of this are:

• A substantial increase in requests for vehicle keeper data (which can be used as a proxy for the number of parking charges issued) since the introduction of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (increasing 350% from 1.9 million in 2012 to 8.4 million in 2019).
• Concerns raised about existing industry standards (with a large volume of qualitative evidence emerging consistently highlighting similar themes relating to negative user experience with private car parks).

The issues arising in the private parking system drove the introduction of the 2019 Act and underpin the proposed code of practice that DLUHC is responsible for implementing.

The code will apply in England, Scotland and Wales, and will specify requirements for private parking operators managing activities in public use car parks, private use car parks, short stay areas and prohibited parking areas. It will not cover on-street parking on public highways or land managed by local authorities subject to civil enforcement, nor will it overrule the provisions and enforcement of byelaws where they apply for parking, for example at airports or rail stations.

The code was originally laid before Parliament in February 2022. However, in April 2022 a number of private parking operators and debt recovery agencies challenged, by way of Judicial Review, the government decision following consultation to introduce new levels of private parking charges and to ban debt recovery fees through the code. These challenges related solely to the appropriateness of those measures – no other element of the code was challenged, and pre-action protocol letters expressed support for the rest of the code.

In response to those challenges, the government agreed to temporarily withdraw the code and re-examine the provisions relating to parking charges and debt recovery fees by compiling an impact assessment and conducting further consultation on these issues.

Ministers will then take decisions relating to parking charge levels and debt recovery fees. The code and its associated enforcement framework have 3 key objectives:

a) Create consistency across the private parking system.
b) Ensure fairness for drivers, registered vehicle keepers and landowners; and
c) Increase transparency in the way the private parking industry operates.

It is expected to include (among other things):

• The production of a new certification scheme, based on the new code of practice and independently assessed by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS). This will outline how in practice the requirements of the code should be measured, tested and assessed.
• A strengthened current system of self-regulation through which trade associations are required to undergo accreditation by UKAS as Conformity Assessment Bodies. This is to ensure that they have the necessary processes in place to assess conformity and compliance with the code among operators, rather than government having a direct role in doing so.
• The creation of a single appeals service, independent from the parking industry, to handle second-stage appeals against private parking charges.
• The establishment of a Scrutiny and Oversight Board to oversee the operation of the new system, monitor its effectiveness and recommend changes as necessary when the code is reviewed every 2 years.

At present, the government is minded to adopt the following specific objectives for the elements of the code relating to parking charges and debt recovery fees:

• Ensure that private parking charges are consistent across the industry and vary in accordance with the severity of the breach.
• Ensure that levels of private parking charges prevent non-compliance with parking restrictions on private land.
• Ensure that there is sufficient deterrent against the non-payment of legitimately issued parking charges, enabling the fair and efficient management of parking spaces on private land.
• Ensure that any debt recovery fees are justified and, if so, are transparent and not excessive.
• Reduce the number of unjust small claims against drivers and registered vehicle keepers.

The proposed options relating to parking charge levels and debt recovery fees, and their anticipated costs and benefits, are explained more fully and assessed in the draft impact assessment published alongside this call for evidence.

The draft impact assessment has been developed following regular engagement with a range of relevant groups, including the Accredited Trade Associations, representatives from private parking operators and debt recovery agencies, and consumer representatives. This has yielded valuable evidence to support the analysis of the impacts of the policy options on businesses and individuals. An overview of this evidence is provided in Annex C of the draft impact assessment.

However, there is scope for that evidence base to be strengthened and this call for evidence is an opportunity for those relevant groups in particular to provide evidence which they know or believe to be material to the government’s future decision regarding parking charges and debt recovery fees. Examples of key areas in which further evidence is sought to ensure that the final Impact Assessment is as well informed as is feasible, are^{[footnote 2]}:

• historic parking charges (i.e. the volumes and patterns of parking charges issues over the past) and future parking charges (i.e. the expected trajectory of parking charge volumes with and without the code)
• geographical distribution of parking charges (i.e. the volumes of parking charges issued in different parts of the country)
• patterns of payment and debt recovery of parking charges
• behavioural responses of drivers and registered vehicle keepers to different levels of parking charges and debt recovery fees (i.e. evidence relevant to judging the nature and degree of the deterrent effect of parking charges and debt recovery fees over time)

About this call for evidence

This call for evidence is focused on strengthening the evidence base underpinning the government’s understanding of the implications of proposed measures to address issues in the private parking industry, to ensure that decisions taken on parking charges and debt recovery fees are as well informed as they can be. The government has sufficient information at present to carry out a consultation exercise and – subject to that consultation exercise – to take a decision, but recognises that there is the potential for evidence to be improved in some areas and wishes to give interested parties the chance to help the government improve the evidence available to it. This call for evidence focuses on the draft impact assessment, which is published alongside this document4.

The government will carefully consider the responses received and will use these along with evidence already available to compile a final Impact Assessment. Consultation is then expected to be undertaken on the options for parking charges and debt recovery fees, with the final impact assessment published to ensure sufficient information is available at that point for respondents to express views on those options with awareness of the implications.

This call for evidence aims to:

1. Test assumptions underpinning the current draft impact assessment;

2. Strengthen the evidence base underpinning the government’s understanding of the implications of the proposed measures; and

3. Gather information to better understand the industry’s current use of parking charges and debt recovery fees so that we can better understand the impacts on different operators.

Responses are invited and welcomed from all who wish to respond. Respondents are strongly encouraged to familiarise themselves with the draft Impact Assessment before responding.

As the final impact assessment will be compiled following this call for evidence, it is important that anyone who feels important evidence is missing from the current draft document, that assumptions are incorrect, and/or that they are able to provide further insights into issues covered, provides that evidence now so that it can inform the consultation on parking charges and debt recovery fees.

Whilst this call for evidence has asked specific questions in relation to the draft Impact Assessment, in order to ensure that the final impact assessment is as well informed as possible, respondents are encouraged to provide any other evidence they may feel is relevant.

Please provide your responses in an appropriate format that makes interpreting and lifting the data easy. If you present information using Microsoft Excel, please ensure calculations are not hard-coded (i.e. any functions used in cells remain in place) or ensure calculations are explained. Typical features of best practice with data more generally include tables and charts that are titled (and for charts specifically, axes that are labelled), clearly presenting the period for any series over time, data being presented with full context and supporting information where appropriate, and, presenting caveats and limitations concerning data where appropriate. Where surveys, experiments and trials are used as evidence, it is imperative that supporting information is provided (for instance, data collection methodology, spatial and temporal coverage, references any raw source data, contextual information, etc.) Where literature/studies are used as evidence, it is also important to provide clear references.

If you do wish to provide evidence outside the scope of what has been asked for specifically in this call for evidence, please consider the format of what you are providing. Please note that the impact assessment can only use material that is presented in a suitable format as outlined above.

Please note that the scope of this call for evidence is focused on the private parking industry and on strengthening the evidence base to inform future consultation and decisions on parking charges and debt recovery fees. It is not a consultation in itself on options for those charges and fees, and the government reserves the right to modify options for that following consultation if responses to this call for evidence demonstrate that changes are needed.

Alongside this call for evidence the government is also seeking additional specific evidence from Accredited Trade Associations. This is because for some data (such as historical levels of parking charges issued), that is the approach likely to yield the most comprehensive data and to combine responses in a way that best supports analysis.

Operators are encouraged to respond to requests for inputs from the trade associations to further help inform the final impact assessment, and can be assured that the trade associations will only share consolidated results. However, should respondents to this call for evidence have relevant evidence to provide to any of these questions, sharing those by way of response to this call for evidence would also be helpful. The following data is being requested through accredited trade associations back to 1 July 2019:

• Total parking charges issued.
• Of all parking charges issued, how many were issued remotely and how many at the time of the contravention (e.g., by affixing the PCN to a windscreen).
• Of those parking charges paid, how many were paid:
  • At the discounted rate
  • At the full rate
• How many parking charges were appealed at the first stage to the operator, including the number of total accepted and rejected cases.
• How many parking charges were appealed at the second stage to the appeals service, including the number of total accepted and rejected cases.
• Of all parking charges issued, how many were issued:
  • In Greater London
  • In Scotland
  • Elsewhere in England and Wales
• How many cases were taken to the debt recovery stage.
  • Of these, how many were recovered.
  • Of these, how many were resolved or cancelled without payment.
• How many cases were taken to court.
  • Of all claims submitted, how many were accepted.
  • Of those accepted, how many cases resulted in CCJs.
  • Of those CCJs, how many were default CCJs.
  • How many parking charges were paid as a consequence of legal action, including paid pre-CCJ or prior to hearing, and paid after hearing or paid after being granted a CCJ.

Impact assessment

Whilst it is only the measures related to parking charges and debt recovery fees on which further consultation is planned, the draft impact assessment assesses the options for parking charges and debt recovery fees in the context of the impact of the whole code as published in February 2022 to provide an indication of the likely impact of the overall policy to be implemented.

Five options are assessed in the draft impact assessment, although as noted above the government reserves the right to modify the options ahead of the further consultation depending on the outcome of this call for evidence:

Option	Parking charge levels	Debt recovery fees
1	Retain £100 limit set by ATAs, including the current 40% discount for paying a parking charge within 14 days of its receipt.	Retain current cap of £70.
2	Set parking charges at £50/70 for England and Wales (outside London), £80/130 inside London, and £80/100 for Scotland[footnote 3], depending on the seriousness of the contravention, while retaining the £100 status quo for abusing a Blue Badge bay and parking on land where parking was not invited and in some restricted car parks (residential and staff-only) outside London. The discount for paying a parking charge within 14 days of its receipt would increase to 50%.	Lower cap to 30% of parking charge levels.
3	As above (option 2).	Banned.
4	Set parking charge levels at £70/100, depending on the seriousness of the contravention, including retaining the £100 status quo for abusing a Blue Badge Bay and parking on land where parking was not invited and in some restricted car parks (residential and staff-only). The discount for paying a parking charge within 14 days of its receipt would remain at 40%.	Lower cap to 30% of parking charge levels.
5	As above (option 4).	Banned.

The draft impact assessment appraises the impacts of the options using 2 key metrics:

• Social Net Present Value (SNPV): this provides a real and discounted assessment of the overall impact of the policy options to society – in simple terms it is the benefit minus the cost of each policy option across the appraisal period; and
• Equivalised Annual Net Cost to Business (EANDCB): this provides a real and discounted assessment of the overall direct impact to businesses.

The SNPV only captures the costs associated with the code. This includes, for instance, costs relating to signage, familiarisation with the code, and the certification scheme.

The EANDCB captures all impacts in the SNPV, but also the impact on businesses from the measures relating to parking charge levels and debt recovery fees (as outlined in the options table above). The cost to business from changes in parking charge levels and debt recovery fees is captured by predicted profit changes as a result of changes in parking charge and debt recovery fee income.

The modelling used for the SNPV analysis takes unit cost estimates for each cost impact and calculates both the cost to business and cost to government. The modelling used for the EANDCB analysis involves more steps. First, historical parking charges based on DVLA Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an Event (KADOE) data is used to forecast a counterfactual scenario (a future where there is no intervention), and a policy scenario (a future where there is intervention), both over ten years from 2024 to 2033. The model then calculates future profits in the counterfactual scenario as well as each policy scenario (i.e. profit changes across options 1 to 5). It is the difference between the counterfactual and policy scenarios that represents the impact of the measures relating to parking charge levels and debt recovery fees, as captured by the EANDCB.

The output of both the SNPV and EANDCB analysis is a range of SNPV and EANDCB values (i.e. central, low and high values) - whilst the draft Impact Assessment presents a central estimate, it is sensible to interpret both values as a range between low and high to account for uncertainty.

The draft impact assessment does not monetise any potential benefits as they lend themselves to more qualitative analysis. However, the code and its accompanying framework are likely to result in significant benefits to consumers, which will serve to reduce the consumer detriment that exists and address existing market failures.

This analysis is informed by the evidence available to government. Where respondents feel that further evidence needs to be considered, please submit that evidence in response to this call for evidence to ensure that it can be considered for the final Impact Assessment. Data relating to the private parking industry is not held in a uniform and centralised manner (unlike, for instance, housing data). This call for evidence therefore seeks to develop a greater degree of consistency in the existing evidence base available for the development of the final impact assessment.

This call for evidence also includes an ‘About you’ section. Completing this will help the government to more effectively consider the impacts of policy options on different groups and types of organisations in the final Impact Assessment. It will allow for a better contextual analysis of responses, for instance helping to differentiate between impacts on smaller and larger businesses (whilst also maintaining anonymity). Respondents are encouraged to complete this section to allow for as robust an analysis as possible in the final impact assessment.

In summary, the key areas on which this call for evidence is seeking responses are as summarised in the following sections:

• Section 1: Cost assumptions
• Section 2: Impact on small businesses
• Section 3: Benefits to motorists, parking operators and landowners
• Section 4: Behavioural change
• Section 5: Miscellaneous
• Section 6: About you

Questions

Section 1: Questions relating to cost assumptions [For private parking industry respondents]

This section asks for evidence regarding costs incurred when dealing with signage. Section 7 of the draft impact assessment provides more detail around the specific costs businesses are expected to face in relation to signage. The unit costs informing signage cost estimations can still be improved and the following questions seek to gain better information on the components determining overall signage costs. Your responses should be based on what you experience as part of your business activity.

Signage assumptions:

1.1 (Please refer to table 7.3 in the draft impact assessment, copied below for convenience). Would you agree or disagree with the assumptions made around the number of signs required per car park, relative to their size? Please provide further evidence to support your response.

Extract from Impact Assessment: Table 7.3: Number of signs by private car park size

Car Park Sizes	Estimated number of signs	Number of car parks	Number of signs
<50	2	28,173	56,346
50-99	4	6,654	26,616
100-499	8	6,811	54,489
500+	16	1,362	21,799
Total		43,000	159,248

The following questions are about the costs you incur when dealing with signage as part of your business activity:

1.2 What is the average cost of producing signage?

1.3 What is the average cost of installing signage?

1.4 What is the average cost of updating signage, and how often this is required?

1.5 What is the average cost of maintaining signage?

1.6 Under the new code of practice, what proportion of signs do you expect will need to be updated?

1.7 Under the new code of practice, how many signs do you expect will need to be newly installed?

Section 2: Questions relating to the impact of this intervention on small businesses (private parking operators and debt recovery agencies) [For private parking industry respondents]

This section asks for evidence relating to businesses (private parking operators and debt recovery agencies). This is relevant to the impact assessment’s estimation of profit impacts from measures relating to parking charge levels and debt recovery fees. Your responses should be based on what you experience as part of your business activity.

Please provide data over the past ten years (or the longest possible period if fewer than ten years). Whilst the government appreciates limitations and sensitivities regarding what can be shared, it is important that the assessment of impacts on small businesses is informed by as much relevant evidence as is feasible. Submissions will be treated with the sensitivity they warrant, and business-sensitive information that is provided will be aggregated and/or anonymised in publications.

Please provide your responses in an appropriate format that makes interpreting and lifting the data easy. If you present information using Microsoft Excel, please ensure calculations are not hard-coded (i.e. any functions used in cells remain in place), or ensure calculations are explained. Please refer to the earlier Section 3 for more information on best practice with data as relevant.

Questions 2.1 and 2.2 seek further information on net profit margins for (a) private parking operators and (b) debt recovery agencies, and the relative proportions of income from parking charges and debt recovery fees.

2.1 [For private parking industry respondents] Are you able to provide any detail on what your net profit margins have been over the last 10 years?

a) What proportion of these profits (in percentage terms) are from parking charges (relative to profits from other activities)?

b) What proportion of these profits (in percentage terms) are from debt recovery fees (relative to profits from other activities)?

2.2 [For debt recovery agencies] Are you able to provide any detail on what your net profit margins have been over the past 10 years?

a) What proportion of these profits (in percentage terms) are from debt recovery fees (relative to profits from other activities)?

b) If applicable, what proportion of these profits (in percentage terms) are from parking charges (relative to profits from other activities)?

The following questions test existing assumptions for various costs associated with parking charges and additional fees. Please provide further evidence to support your response (including a breakdown of costs where possible). Your responses should be based on what you experience as part of your business activity.

2.3 (Please refer to Section 9 in the draft Impact Assessment) Would you agree with the assumption that it costs around £8.42 to issue a single parking charge (excluding the £2.50 DVLA fee for requesting vehicle information)?

2.4 What does it cost you, on average, to successfully recover a parking charge at the debt recovery stage?

2.5 How do you typically use the remaining income generated from a paid parking charge (for example, if it does cost around £8.42, excluding the £2.50 DVLA fee, to issue a parking charge, how is the remaining £90 used in the case where £100 is received, or the remaining £50 where £60 is received)?

2.6 Please select from the list below which statement best describes your commercial arrangements with debt recovery agencies:

a) Debt recovery agencies keep the debt recovery fee recovered

b) You keep a portion of the debt recovery fee recovered

c) You pay a commission for the debt recovery agency’s services

d) Other (please provide more detail)

2.7 [For parking operators] The draft impact assessment makes an assumption (based on local authority data) that around 80% of all parking charges issued are for lower contraventions. What proportion of all parking charges issued on your sites would fall under lower and higher contraventions (as listed in Annex A of this document)?

2.8 Does your organisation conduct any additional business activities beyond recovery of parking charges? If so, what are they?

The following question is specifically targeted at Accredited Trade Associations, to strengthen the government’s understanding of the overall industry’s composition insofar as business size is concerned.

2.9 Are you able to provide any evidence on how many car parking operators are classified as small businesses (49 employees or less) or medium businesses (50 to 249 employees)?

Whilst this call for evidence does not specifically seek views on the policy options proposed, to inform the final impact assessment it would be helpful to understand industry respondents’ projections of the impacts of the various options on their business. This can help to test the assumptions in the draft Impact Assessment and ensure that when decisions are taken these are as well informed as possible.

Whilst quantitative evidence is preferred, qualitative evidence is also welcomed. Please base your feedback on evidence (for instance, your own quantified assessments of the impact of this regulation, external research, etc.)

2.10 [For parking operators] What impact would the proposed options relating to parking charge levels have on your business? Please provide evidence to support your response.

2.11 [For debt recovery agencies] What impact would the proposed options relating to debt recovery fees have on your business? Please provide evidence to support your response.

Section 3: Benefits to motorists, parking operators and landowners [For all respondents]

The draft impact assessment monetises a range of costs associated with the code’s provisions, but does not currently monetise benefits to drivers, registered vehicle keepers, operators and/or landowners. This is because it is currently unfeasible to monetise those benefits and so impacts have only been presented qualitatively. The following questions seek the views of all respondents.

3.1. Are you able to provide any evidence of benefits arising from the code to drivers and/or registered vehicle keepers that can be monetised?

3.2. Are you able to provide any evidence of benefits arising from the code to parking operators that can be monetised?

3.3. Are you able to provide any evidence of benefits arising from the code to landowners that can be monetised?

3.4. Are you able to provide any additional information on any benefits arising from the code to either drivers, registered vehicle keepers, parking operators or landowners that can be expressed in non-monetised terms (which is not currently presented in the draft impact assessment)?

Section 4: Questions relating to behavioural change [For all respondents]

The government is keen to consider additional evidence on behavioural assumptions that can be made, as they determine the predicted trajectories of parking charges over time (which determines the impact assessment’s assessment of the cost to business, and benefit to consumers and industry actors from the code).

This section therefore seeks additional evidence on the anticipated behavioural impacts of setting different levels of parking charges and debt recovery fees, to strengthen the behavioural assumptions that will inform the final impact assessment. This will support the final assessment of the projected impacts of the different policy options on drivers, registered vehicle keepers, operators and landowners alike.

Whilst quantitative evidence is preferred, qualitative evidence is also welcomed. Examples of relevant evidence include experiments or research that provide insights into behavioural responses to parking charges and/or debt recovery fees.

4.1 The deterrent effect is frequently cited as a reason to maintain existing parking charge and debt recovery fee levels. The general argument here suggests that existing parking charge limits provide a deterrent against non-compliant parking, with existing debt recovery fee limits providing an additional deterrent for those who do receive charges to pay those charges before it progresses to the debt recovery stage.

a) If you agree that existing parking charge limits provide an effective deterrent against non-compliant parking, please provide evidence to support this view.

b) If you agree that existing debt recovery fee limits provide an effective deterrent against non-payment of issued parking charges, please provide evidence to support this view.

c) More generally, can you provide any additional evidence on behavioural responses to changes in parking charges and/or debt recovery fees?

4.2 If the code is adopted using the current limits on parking charges and debt recovery fees (i.e. option 1), how would you anticipate the number of parking charges issued would change over time? Please provide evidence to support your response.

4.3 Would you anticipate that a reduction in the level at which parking charges are set would lead to an increase in non-compliant parking? If so, how would this vary at different levels of parking charge? Please provide further evidence to support your response.

4.4 Would you anticipate that a reduction in the level at which debt recovery fees are set, or removing debt recovery fees for private parking charges altogether, would reduce the overall proportion of parking charges which are paid? If so, how would this vary at different levels of debt recovery fee? Please provide further evidence to support your response.

4.5 Would you agree or disagree that lowering or removing debt recovery fees would lead to more county court claims? If so, to what extent? Please provide further evidence to support your response.

Section 5: Miscellaneous [For private parking industry respondents]

The following questions are aimed at private parking industry respondents. These cover a range of topics that will strengthen the government’s evidence base for the impact assessment and equalities impact assessment.

5.1 Do you have any evidence regarding how many parking charges are issued to drivers with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 who may be vulnerable, such as for elderly or disabled drivers?

5.2 Are you able to provide any evidence, as operators, on what proportion of your car parks are on land that you own, and what proportion are on land that you do not own?

5.3 From the list below, which statement best describes the sort of commercial arrangements you have with the landowners for whom you provide parking services?

a) You charge a service fee

b) You retain all or a proportion of income generated from parking tariffs or charges

c) Mixture of the above

d) Other (please provide more detail)

5.4 Do you have comments on any other assumptions and evidence used in the draft impact assessment not listed in any of the sections above, which you feel would support the development of the impact assessment? If so, please provide further information.

Section 6: About you

Please use this section to tell us about yourself.

For further information on how we use and process your personal data, please see our ‘processing of personal data’ statement in the next section.

If you would prefer to provide an anonymous response to this consultation, then do not complete these questions.

1. What is your name or name of organisation on behalf of which you are responding?

2. I am responding primarily as a:

a. Private parking operator

b. Landowner

c. Debt recovery agency

d. Motorist

e. Other (please specify)

3. For parking operator respondents – which trade association do you belong to?

4. How many parking sites does your company manage?

5. Where in the UK is/are your site/s located?

6. What proportion of your car parks are (in percentage terms):

a. parking where it is invited (free)

b. parking where it is invited (paid)

c. parking where it is invited for free for certain period of time before it becomes paid

d. Parking where it is provided only for private purposes without public parking invited.

e. Residential or permit only

f. Other

Annex A: Proposed higher and lower parking contraventions list for new code

Local authority off-street contraventions from PCN Codes 6.7.7	Level
Parked in a loading place or bay during restricted hours without loading	Higher
Parked in an electric vehicles’ charging place during restricted hours without charging	Higher
Using a vehicle in a parking place in connection with the sale or offering or exposing for sale of goods when prohibited	Higher
Parked in a restricted area in a car park	Higher
Parked without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit where required	Higher*
Parked in a designated disabled person’s parking place without displaying a valid disabled person’s badge in the prescribed manner	Higher**
Vehicle parked exceeds maximum weight or height or length permitted	Higher
Parked in a car park or area not designated for that class of vehicle	Higher
Parked causing an obstruction	Higher
Parked in car park when closed	Lower
Parked in a pay & display car park without clearly displaying multiple valid pay and display tickets when required	Lower
Parked in a parking place for a purpose other than that designated	Lower
Parked with engine running where prohibited	Lower
Parked without payment of the parking charge	Lower
Parked for longer than permitted	Lower
Parked after the expiry of paid for time	Lower
Parked in a car park without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket or voucher or parking clock	Lower
Not parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space	Lower
Re-parked in the same car park within the prescribed time period after leaving	Lower

*£100 if outside of London and in a resident or staff-only car park (for Option 2)
**£100 outside London (for Option 2)

Local authority on-street contraventions from PCN Codes 6.7.7	Level
Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway)	Higher**

Proposed additional private contraventions	Level
Misuse of Specialist Bays (Doctors’ Bay, Emergency Vehicles, Parent and Child, Staff-Only Bay in a mixed-use car park etc.)	Higher
Parked in a customer only space if not a customer	Higher
Transferring a parking ticket	Higher
Failure to register vehicle if required	Higher
Parking on controlled land where parking is not permitted	Higher**

**£100 outside London (for Option 2)

Annex B: Personal data

The following is to explain your rights and give you the information you are entitled to under UK data protection legislation.

Note that this section only refers to personal data (your name, contact details and any other information that relates to you or another identified or identifiable individual personally) not the content otherwise of your response to the consultation.

1. The identity of the data controller and contact details of our Data Protection Officer

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) is the data controller. The Data Protection Officer can be contacted at dataprotection@levellingup.gov.uk or by writing to the following address:

Data Protection Officer
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

2. Why we are collecting your personal data

Your personal data is being collected as an essential part of the consultation process, so that we can contact you regarding your response and for statistical purposes. We may also use it to contact you about related matters.

We will collect your IP address if you complete a consultation online. We may use this to ensure that each person only completes a survey once. We will not use this data for any other purpose.

Sensitive types of personal data

Please do not share special category personal data or criminal offence data if we have not asked for this unless absolutely necessary for the purposes of your consultation response. By ‘special category personal data’, we mean information about a living individual’s:

• race

• ethnic origin

• political opinions

• religious or philosophical beliefs

• trade union membership

• genetics

• biometrics

• health (including disability-related information)

• sex life; or

• sexual orientation.

By ‘criminal offence data’, we mean information relating to a living individual’s criminal convictions or offences or related security measures.

3. Our legal basis for processing your personal data

The collection of your personal data is lawful under article 6(1)(e) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation as it is necessary for the performance by DLUHC of a task in the public interest/in the exercise of official authority vested in the data controller. Section 8(d) of the Data Protection Act 2018 states that this will include processing of personal data that is necessary for the exercise of a function of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a government department i.e. in this case a consultation.

Where necessary for the purposes of this consultation, our lawful basis for the processing of any special category personal data or ‘criminal offence’ data (terms explained under ‘Sensitive Types of Data’) which you submit in response to this consultation is as follows. The relevant lawful basis for the processing of special category personal data is Article 9(2)(g) UK GDPR (‘substantial public interest’), and Schedule 1 paragraph 6 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (‘statutory etc and government purposes’). The relevant lawful basis in relation to personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences data is likewise provided by Schedule 1 paragraph 6 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

4. With whom we will be sharing your personal data

DLUHC may appoint a ‘data processor’, acting on behalf of the Department and under our instruction, to help analyse the responses to this consultation. Where we do we will ensure that the processing of your personal data remains in strict accordance with the requirements of the data protection legislation.

5. For how long we will keep your personal data, or criteria used to determine the retention period.

Your personal data will be held for two years from the closure of the consultation, unless we identify that its continued retention is unnecessary before that point.

6. Your rights, e.g. access, rectification, restriction, objection

The data we are collecting is your personal data, and you have considerable say over what happens to it. You have the right:

a. to see what data we have about you

b. to ask us to stop using your data, but keep it on record

c. to ask to have your data corrected if it is incorrect or incomplete

d. to object to our use of your personal data in certain circumstances

e. to lodge a complaint with the independent Information Commissioner (ICO) if you think we are not handling your data fairly or in accordance with the law. You can contact the ICO at https://ico.org.uk/, or telephone 0303 123 1113.

Please contact us at the following address if you wish to exercise the rights listed above, except the right to lodge a complaint with the ICO: dataprotection@levellingup.gov.uk or

Knowledge and Information Access Team
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

7. Your personal data will not be sent overseas

8. Your personal data will not be used for any automated decision making

9. Your personal data will be stored in a secure government IT system

Your personal data will be transferred to our secure government IT system, and it will be stored there for two years before it is deleted.

About this call for evidence

This call for evidence document and call for evidence process have been planned to adhere to the consultation principles issued by the Cabinet Office.

Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent, and where relevant who else they have consulted in reaching their conclusions when they respond.

Information provided in response to this call for evidence, including personal data, may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA), the UK General Data Protection Regulation, and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, as a public authority, the Department is bound by the Freedom of Information Act and may therefore be obliged to disclose all or some of the information you provide. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department.

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will process your personal data in accordance with the law and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties. A full privacy notice is included at Annex B.

Individual responses will not be acknowledged unless specifically requested.

Your opinions are valuable to us. Thank you for taking the time to read this document and respond.

Are you satisfied that this call for evidence has followed the consultation principles? If not or you have any other observations about how we can improve the process please contact us via the complaints procedure.

Annex C: Freedom of Information Act 2000

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) we might be asked to release the data that you have provided to us under a Freedom of Information request. Any individual has the right to request recorded information which is held by a public authority under the FOIA. The FOIA  contains various exemptions and exclusions from the right of access to information that ensure a proper balance is achieved between the right to know, the right to personal privacy, the delivery of effective government, and other important private interests such as protection of commercial interests, and information provided in confidence.

Whist the Department handles FOIA requests on a case-by-case basis, we shall consider engaging the relevant exemption(s) in the Act to withhold any information that may be commercially sensitive and/or where to release such information would be a breach of confidence.

If you want your response to be considered as commercially sensitive or as having been provided in confidence, please mark it as such but we cannot give assurance that the exemption(s) in the FOIA can be utilised in all circumstances.

Data that you tell us is commercially sensitive and provided in confidence will be stored securely and deleted once no longer required. All reports containing such data will be reported only in aggregate, anonymous form.

1. Both the British Parking Association and International Parking Community set limits of £100 on parking charges and £70 on debt recovery fees, with higher levels requiring approval from the relevant trade association. ↩

2. This is not an exhaustive list. ↩

3. These levels reflect the current levels of local authority penalty charges in these locations. ↩