Consultation outcome

Private Parking Code of Practice: government response

Updated 20 October 2026

Introduction

The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to prepare a Code of Practice containing guidance about the operation and management of private parking facilities. The Act is applicable across England, Scotland and Wales. The government’s Code of Practice (the Code) must contain guidance that promotes good practice in the operation and management of private parking facilities, and guidance about appeals against private parking charges imposed by, or on behalf of, persons providing private parking facilities.

Section 2(1) of the Act requires the Secretary of State to seek views on proposals to raise standards in the private parking industry before preparing the Code. To fulfil this requirement, the government published a consultation on 11 July 2025 seeking views on its proposals to raise standards in the private parking industry. The consultation closed on 26 September 2025.

The government consulted on the following areas:

The private parking charge cap: views on the appropriate level of the maximum private parking charge, including whether to retain the existing £100 industry cap and the 40% discount for early payment.

The debt recovery fee cap: views on the current £70 cap, whether a debt recovery fee cap should be in place, and, if so, the appropriate level of that cap.

Signage: views on minimum signage standards and the inclusion of best practice language.

Adoption of the industry’s five-minute rule: views on adopting the Sector Single Code’s “pay before exit” standard, which prevents parking charges where a motorist pays in full before leaving an automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)-controlled car park.

Consideration and grace periods: views on minimum periods for motorists to consider the terms and conditions of a car park before they choose to park and the period a motorist has to exit a car park once their parking session has ended.

Reduced charge for certain mitigating circumstances and additional mitigations in the Appeals Charter: views on the treatment of mitigating circumstances, including reduced charges, first-charge protections, and circumstances where appeals should be upheld in favour of motorists.

Process for appealing parking charges: views on protections for motorists submitting late appeals.

Where parking tariff exceed the parking charge: views on the recovery of unpaid parking tariffs and the appropriateness of additional charges associated with tariff non-payment.

Data collection and transparency: views on proposals for enhanced data collection from the private parking industry to support government oversight and evidence-based decision making.

The Scrutiny and Oversight Board: views on the independence and membership of the Scrutiny and Oversight Board.

Government guide for motorists: views on the publication of a non-statutory guide for motorists, and whether operators should be required to direct motorists to that guide.

Second-stage appeals perception and independence: to better understand motorists’ ongoing negative perceptions of the current second-stage appeals services so that a new solution addresses these concerns.

Additional comments: an opportunity for respondents to provide comments on any aspect of the consultation proposals, or the accompanying Options Assessment.

Minor corrections and clarifications to the Withdrawn Code: views on a range of technical amendments, corrections and clarifications proposed before the Code is finalised.

Clarification of differences between the Single Sector Code and the Withdrawn Code: Throughout, views were sought on provisions where the two codes take different approaches, including the treatment of mitigating circumstances and associated appeal outcomes.

Public sector equality duty: views on possible equality implications of the proposals and any mitigating actions that may be required.

Environmental principles policy statement: views on any potential environmental impacts of the proposed reforms.

This document summarises the responses received to each question in the consultation and sets out the government’s response.  

Overview of consultation responses

The consultation ran for 11 weeks and received 4,526 responses, comprising 4,415 submitted online and 111 submitted by email or post. As many of the offline responses had minimal to no alignment to the questions as presented in the consultation, only 34 were able to be used in the quantitative analysis. However, all were subjected to textual analysis. Textual analysis involves systematically reviewing written responses to identify common themes, concerns and viewpoints raised by respondents.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) appointed a data processor to help analyse the responses to the consultation. This analysis aided the government’s consideration of the evidence and the summary of responses set out in this document.

The government response provides a summary of the consultation responses received. It does not attempt to capture every point made. For ease of reference, each question states at the end whether it required a multiple-choice response or a free-text response.

This document sets out the changes the government has made in response to the main points raised in the consultation and where the government has not made changes, the reasons are explained.

Breakdown of respondents: questions 1 to 6

Table 1. Summary of the number of responses per stakeholder group

Stakeholder group	Online responses via Citizen Space	Responses via post or email
Motorist	3966	64
Motorist representative organisation	15	2
Private parking operator	95	16
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	1	3
Accredited Trade Association (trade association)	1	2
Debt recovery agency	5	1
Private parking industry representative organisation*	5	0
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	78	4
Business with an interest in how private parking in managed (relevant business)	53	3
Not answered	80	0
Other**	116	16
Total	4415	111

*The private parking industry representative organisation category was self-selected by a range of respondents, including operators, landowners, businesses and individual respondents.

** The category of ‘Other’ was self-selected by respondents who represented a diverse range of individuals, including passengers, disabled and Blue Badge holders, residents and landowners, public bodies, legal and consumer advisers, healthcare organisations, and parking-sector professionals.

Parking charge cap: questions 7 to 10

Q7a: Do you agree that the government should include the current industry cap of £100 in the proposed new government Code? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Support (Strongly agree/agree)	Oppose (Strongly disagree/ disagree)	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	1,555 (37.8%)	2,421 (58.8%)	111 (2.7%)	33 (0.8%)
Motorist representative organisation	8 (40.0%)	8 (40.0%)	2 (10.0%)	2 (10.0%)
Private parking operator	88 (82.3%)	19 (17.7%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	4 (80.0%)	1 (20.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	74 (86.1%)	11 (12.8%)	1 (1.2%)	0 (0.0%)
Debt recovery agency	5 (62.5%)	1 (12.5%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (25.0%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	3 (75.0%)	1 (25.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	40 (67.8%)	17 (28.8%)	1 (1.7%)	1 (1.7%)
Other	8 (40.0%)	7 (35.0%)	2 (10.0%)	3 (15.0%)
Not answered	4 (22.3%)	4 (22.3%)	0 (0.0%)	10 (55.6%)

Q7b: Please explain your answer. (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

The 58.8% of motorists and 40.0% of motorist representative organisations who opposed retaining the £100 cap, viewed it as disproportionate to the underlying cost of parking and as a mechanism that allows operators to unduly profit at the expense of motorists who may already be experiencing financial hardship. These groups expressed a strong preference for a single cap to be set within the range of £50–£70, with many suggesting that figures within this banding would still allow for effective enforcement.

Many motorists felt that the current enforcement process permits some operators to operate in an aggressive, confusing and unfair way, contributing to a widespread lack of trust in the system. Respondents frequently questioned whether the current charge level is proportionate, viewing it instead as a source of financial benefit for operators rather than a mechanism for improving compliance.

However, 37.8% of motorists supported retaining the £100 cap, arguing that maintaining a meaningful financial deterrent was necessary to encourage compliance and that £100 represented an appropriate middle ground. These respondents considered the existing cap to be effective and noted that it provides a clear and familiar standard that is already widely understood by motorists.

Parking operators, trade associations, debt recovery agents, landowners and relevant businesses showed a strong preference for the retention of the £100 cap, arguing that it provides clarity and consistency across sites and remains a strong deterrent to non-compliance. Respondents noted that £100 is a familiar figure for motorists and is well established across the sector. Among respondents who supported the £100 cap, frequent concern was given to the impact of inflation in undermining compliance and increasing costs for operators. In some cases, this was accompanied by calls for periodic reviews of the cap or for it to be linked to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Less than 10% of operators, relevant businesses, landowners, and debt recovery agents considered the £100 cap to be high, with some specifically noting the difference with local authority penalty charges in England (excluding London) and Wales which are lower and acknowledging concerns raised by motoring representative organisations that a £100 cap may undermine public trust and disproportionately affect lower-income motorists.

Q7c: If you do not agree with the £100 figure, what figure do you consider would be appropriate, and what would the benefits be? (Free Text)

Summary of consultation responses

There was a broad consensus across all groups on the need for a single national private parking charge cap, however, there was a range of views between groups on the level at which it should be set.

As set out in responses to question 7b, most motorists and motorist representative organisations considered the current £100 cap to be disproportionately high. Across motorists’ responses, there was a range of views on what would constitute the most appropriate cap level. There was strong support for caps within the range of £50 to £70, on the basis that an effective deterrent does not require charges to be set at a level that enables excessive profits. Some motorists went further, advocating for caps ranging between £25 and £40, arguing that these figures would be sufficient to cover operator overheads while avoiding the generation of additional profit. Additionally, motorists felt a clear, unambiguous national cap would help improve consistency and reduce confusion.

For operators who proposed a higher cap (less than 10% of operator respondents) the range was between £110 to £164. It was argued that inflation had eroded, or risked eroding, the effectiveness of the £100 cap. These operators therefore argued that a higher charge level was necessary to maintain, both, the real-terms deterrent effect of parking charges and the operational viability of the sector.

Both trade associations urged the government to consider higher parking charge levels. They also argued that the value of the £100 charge had been eroded over time and they pointed to rising operational costs, which they said had contributed to operators increasingly applying the maximum charge.

The majority of landowners and relevant businesses favoured the retention of the £100 cap on the parking charge. However, the suggestions to uplift the caps ranged from £130 to £200, where a minority of these respondents saw a need to preserve deterrence and cover rising enforcement costs. A minority of relevant businesses and landowners favoured lower charge levels, proposing caps ranging from £50 to £80 on the grounds of affordability and a desire to encourage higher payment rates.

Q7d: If the Government were to introduce a lower cap, or different caps in different areas (e.g. higher in London but lower elsewhere), what would the benefits and costs be? Please provide any relevant evidence. (Free Text)

Summary of consultation responses

Across all respondent groups, there was broad support for an evidence-based and transparent approach to any parking charge cap. The majority of operators, trade associations, debt recovery agents, landowners and relevant businesses emphasised the importance of simplicity and national consistency, arguing that regional variation could increase complexity and administrative costs. While the question sought views on regional variation, many motorists and motorist representative organisations instead used their responses to comment on the current £100 cap. However, among those who addressed the specific question, similar concerns were raised about the potential for regional differences to increase complexity and create additional costs. A small number of respondents considered that regional variation could better reflect local market conditions and operating costs. However, these views were often accompanied by concerns about increased operational burdens and perceptions of unfairness, particularly in areas close to regional boundaries.

Government response to the level of the parking charge cap

The government recognises that the level of the parking charge cap is a significant concern for many motorists and other stakeholders. The parking charge cap is the maximum charge that a parking operator can charge a motorist where there is evidence that the motorist has failed to comply with the terms and conditions on signage. The government accepts that a financial consequence for not adhering to terms and conditions is required to deter wilful non-compliance and support effective management of private car parks.

Having considered the consultation responses and available evidence, the government has decided to freeze the parking charge cap at £100 in the Code, in line with the current industry cap. This ensures motorists remain protected from higher charges, while maintaining a level that the industry considers effective in encouraging compliance. The £100 cap has been used in various industry codes since at least 2009 and remains unchanged despite inflationary pressures. Industry data also indicates that more than 99% of parking events do not result in a parking charge, suggesting that most motorists comply with the terms and conditions in place.

The government acknowledges that views remain divided on whether a lower cap would continue to provide an effective deterrent, while enabling parking operators to manage parking facilities and enforce compliance. While a number of respondents supported reducing the cap, current evidence does not provide a sufficiently robust basis for reliably determining the minimum charge level necessary to deter wilful non-compliance.

The government will also ask the Scrutiny and Oversight Board, once established, to keep the cap under review and provide recommendations on the minimum level required to deter wilful non-compliance. Should future evidence demonstrate that a lower cap can achieve the policy objective while maintaining effective deterrence, the government will consider whether changes are appropriate.

The £100 cap remains a maximum national amount across England, Scotland and Wales, and landowners and parking operators will continue to have discretion to set parking charges below this level, where they consider it appropriate. The new data metrics framework (found in Clause 17 of the Code) will collect information on the level of the parking charge at each site enabling the Scrutiny and Oversight Board to monitor trends over time.

Early payment discount: questions 8a and 8b

Q8a: Do you think there should be a 40% discount on parking charges for early payment (within 14 days of receiving the parking charge)? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Support (Strongly agree/agree)	Oppose (Strongly disagree/ disagree)	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	2,440 (59.2%)	1,483 (36.0%)	143 (3.5%)	53 (1.3%)
Motorist representative organisation	9 (45.0%)	7 (35.0%)	1 (5.0%)	3 (15.0%)
Private parking operator	101 (94.4%)	5 (4.6%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (0.9%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	5 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	71 (82.5%)	7 (8.2%)	4 (4.7%)	4 (4.7%)
Debt recovery agency	6 (75.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (25.0%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	4 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	40 (67.8%)	18 (30.5%)	1 (1.7%)	0 (0.0%)
Other	8 (40.0%)	7 (35.0%)	2 (10.0%)	3 (15.0%)
Not answered	5 (27.8%)	3 (16.7%)	0 (0.0%)	10 (55.6%)

Q8b: Please explain your answer. (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

Most motorists, operators, trade associations, debt recovery agents, and landowners supported the existing 40% discount, considering it a fair approach that encourages early engagement and helps reduce the financial impact of a parking charge. A minority from these groups disagreed with the 40% rate, although the reasons for this were mixed.

Motorist representative organisations, and some motorists, supported increasing the discount to 50%, arguing that this would encourage earlier resolution of cases while maintaining a proportionate deterrent effect. Some relevant businesses echoed this view, suggesting that alignment with local authority practice would create greater consistency across the parking industry and improve understanding among motorists. A small number of operators also supported increasing it to 50% to align with the discount available for early payment of local authority penalty charge notices and improve consistency for motorists across different parking regimes.

However, some operators and relevant businesses argued that the current discount was too generous and should be reduced, warning that it could weaken the deterrent effect of parking charges and incentivise motorists to pay immediately, rather than engage with the appeals process where grounds for appeal may exist.

Government response to the early payment discount

The government has carefully considered consultation responses regarding the early payment discount. Consultation responses indicate that many stakeholders view the current discount as an important incentive for early engagement and resolution of parking charges. The government notes the responses in support of an increase in the discount rate from 40% to 50% to align with local authority practice.

The government has decided to retain the existing 40% early payment discount for parking charges under the current terms. The government considers that the current discount strikes an appropriate balance between reducing the financial impact of a parking charge on motorists and maintaining an effective deterrent against wilful non-compliance, based on current available evidence.

The government also recognises the potential benefits from a higher discount, including increased engagement and will ask the Scrutiny and Oversight Board, once established, to keep the discount rate under review and consider future evidence on whether changes would improve outcomes for motorists while maintaining effective compliance with parking terms and conditions.

The government is aware of the concerns published by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in relation to the private parking industry, including its views on the use of discount rates and consumer protections. The CMA’s concerns about this appear to primarily focus on ensuring that motorists are not discouraged from pursuing appeals because they risk losing access to the discounted rate if an appeal is unsuccessful. This falls outside the scope of this consultation but the government will consider including this in a future consultation once the Code is laid.

Scrutiny and Oversight Board in relation to the parking charge cap: question 9

Q9: What factors do you think the Scrutiny and Oversight Board should take into account when considering whether to recommend changes to the parking charge cap? (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

Fairness and proportionality were dominant themes in motorist and motorist representative organisation responses, with a view that consideration should be given to affordability and the need to protect vulnerable groups. A further range of diverse factors were mentioned as having a bearing on the cap, including inflation, the cost of living, and public perception metrics and satisfaction surveys.

Parking operators, trade associations, landowners, debt recovery agents and relevant businesses all suggested financial sustainability, deterrence value, inflation, and fairness as key factors for consideration. Staffing, signage, and appeals costs were proposed as specific metrics, alongside including Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) statistics, data on motorists receiving multiple charges, and motorist behaviour analysis. These groups acknowledged a need to consider fairness to motorists as a way to avoid disproportionate penalties for minor breaches and to improve the perception of the industry.

Government response to the Scrutiny and Oversight Board in relation to the parking charge cap

The government has taken into account the consultation responses and any future review of the parking charge cap should consider fairness, proportionality, affordability and the need to protect vulnerable motorists. The government also notes the wide range of factors identified by respondents, including inflation, cost-of-living pressures, financial sustainability, deterrence, public confidence, and wider industry and motorist impacts. The Scrutiny and Oversight Board will be asked to keep the cap under review, using industry data and stakeholder evidence to assess its effectiveness and to provide recommendations to government. This may include consideration of parking charge trends, motorist outcomes, inflation, DVLA and appeals data, and other relevant evidence relating to compliance, deterrence, proportionality and the operation of the private parking system. Any future changes to the parking charge cap would remain a matter for government and be subject to consultation. In doing so, the Board will support an evidence-based assessment of whether the cap continues to strike an appropriate balance between protecting motorists from disproportionate outcomes and ensuring operators and landowners can maintain effective parking management.

Debt recovery fees: questions 10 to 14

Q10a: Are you in favour of, or against, the current industry cap on debt recovery fees of £70? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	In favour	Against	N/A	Not answered
Motorist	1091 (28.7%)	2635 (69.3%)	0 (0.0%)	74 (1.9%)
Motorist representative organisation	5 (29.4%)	10 (58.8%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (11.8%)
Private parking operator	100 (95.2%)	5 (4.8%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	5 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	51 (67.1%)	19 (25.0%)	0 (0.0%)	6 (7.9%)
Debt recovery agency	7 (87.5%)	1 (12.5%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	4 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	31 (59.6%)	20 (38.5%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (1.9%)
Other	5 (29.4%)	8 (47.1%)	0 (0.0%)	4 (23.5%)
Not answered	3 (17.6%)	5 (29.4%)	0 (0.0%)	9 (52.9%)

Q10b: Please explain your answer. (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

Motorists and motorist representative organisations overwhelmingly opposed the current £70 debt recovery fee, describing it as excessive and unjustified. There was a strong preference for a lower fee cap based on demonstrable costs, with a suggested range of between £10 and £25. Comparisons were made with the energy and telecom sectors, where late payment fees are substantially lower (£10–£30) than the private parking industry. A small minority responded to this question stating debt recovery fees should be abolished.

A small number of motorists raised concerns about the possible commercial arrangements between some private parking operators and debt recovery agents. They argued that if debt recovery agents are remunerated through a share of recovered amounts, this may create incentives to continue enforcement activity rather than resolve disputes at an earlier stage. Respondents suggested that both operators and debt recovery agents could have a financial interest in pursuing outstanding charges through the recovery process.

Operators, trade associations, debt recovery agents, and landowners predominantly supported the £70 debt recovery fee, viewing it as a necessary deterrent against non-payment and a cost-recovery mechanism. Without debt recovery fees, many in these groups argued compliant motorists would indirectly subsidise those who refuse to pay and more cases would end in court action. The majority argued that the debt recovery fee accurately reflects genuine costs for debt collection, although some noted a preference for higher fees to reflect rising costs.

Relevant businesses largely accepted the principle of a capped debt recovery fee, but responses reflected a range between £50-£70. Several suggested that £70 did not reflect costs, citing lower administrative fees in other regulated sectors, seeing a cap of around £50 as more reasonable and proportionate. A larger group did, however, support retaining £70 where costs are evidenced and processes are transparent.

Q11a: Do you agree that it is reasonable for motorists to be charged an additional sum to cover the costs relating to recovering unpaid invoices, also known as debt recovery fees? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Support (Strongly agree/agree)	Oppose (Strongly disagree/ disagree)	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	1,832 (44.5%)	2,035 (49.5%)	206 (5.0%)	45 (1.1%)
Motorist representative organisation	6 (30.0%)	10 (50.0%)	1 (5.0%)	3 (15.0%)
Private parking operator	102 (95.3%)	5 (4.7%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	5 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	79 (91.9%)	4 (4.7%)	2 (2.3%)	1 (1.2%)
Debt recovery agency	8 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	4 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	41 (70.7%)	13 (22.4%)	4 (6.9%)	0 (0.0%)
Other	11 (55.0%)	6 (30.0%)	0 (0.0%)	3 (15.0%)
Not answered	3 (16.7%)	4 (22.3%)	1 (5.6%)	10 (55.6%)

Q11b: Please explain your answer. (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

The majority of motorists and motorist representative organisations were opposed to the principle of charging a debt recovery fee on top of the parking charge. Many considered the practice to be exploitative and alleged that the debt recovery fee is often applied before motorists have had a fair opportunity to resolve issues due to difficulties with engaging with the appeals process, with some respondents alleging that operators deliberately make it difficult for motorist to appeal. Many responses gave examples of alleged intimidatory behaviour and respondents reported that they perceived the process as a profit mechanism.

Parking operators, trade associations, debt recovery agents, landowners and relevant businesses saw the principle of an additional fee as reasonable, and necessary to cover actual costs of recovering unpaid invoices. Many stressed that non-payment is a choice by motorists, and those who disregard parking charges should bear the cost of follow-up action. Some highlighted that debt recovery agents provide structured repayment options, which they claim makes the £70 fee more proportionate and less intimidatory. Recognition was given to the need for transparency and consumer clarity, with some acknowledging that opaque fees harm the reputation of parking enforcement and reduce public trust.

Q12a: If you agree that there should be a charge, which of the following cap levels do you think is reasonable for debt recovery fees: £1 to £19, £20 to £39, £40 to £59, £60 to £79, £80 to £99, £100 plus. (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	£1 to £19	£20 to £39	£40 to £59	£60 to £79	£80 to £99	£100+	Not answered
Motorist	1306 (31.7%)	913 (22.2%)	404 (9.8%)	352 (8.5%)	47 (1.1%)	57 (1.4%)	1041 (25.3%)
Motorist representative organisation	4 (20.0%)	4 (20.0%)	1 (5.0%)	2 (10.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	9 (45.0%)
Private parking operator	2 (1.9%)	2 (1.9%)	2 (1.9%)	81 (75.7%)	11 (10.3%)	4 (3.7%)	5 (4.7%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	0 (0.0%)	1 (20.0%)	0 (0.0%)	3 (60.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (20.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	3 (3.5%)	3 (3.5%)	10 (11.6%)	34 (39.5%)	8 (9.3%)	12 (14.0%)	16 (18.6%)
Debt recovery agency	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (12.5%)	6 (75.0%)	1 (12.5%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	4 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	8 (13.8%)	7 (12.1%)	7 (12.1%)	18 (31.0%)	0 (0.0%)	3 (5.2%)	15 (25.9%)
Other	1 (5.0%)	4 (20.0%)	2 (10.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (5.0%)	1 (5.0%)	11 (55.0%)
Not answered	3 (16.7%)	1 (5.6%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (11.1%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	12 (66.7%)

Q12b: Please explain your answer. (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

The majority of motorists and motorist representative organisations took the view that fees should reflect actual administrative costs, with a lower cap of £10 to £25 seen as appropriate. However, these responses should be considered in the context of the analysis provided in the consultation by the government, which indicated that lower debt recovery fees could still support a functioning debt recovery market (see the government response section below for more detail). This may have influenced the assessment from all respondents on what cap would be sustainable. There was broad consensus from motorists and motoring representative organisations that the current £70 fee represents profiteering rather than deterrence, although the small number of respondents who supported the current cap did so on the basis that it should cover incurred costs and would help encourage people to engage with the enforcement process.

Very few operators and debt recovery agents supported a lower cap, instead, along with the trade associations, they argued for either maintaining the £70 cap or raising it. Many argued that £70 is already the minimum viable level to cover genuine cost recovery, with some suggesting that inflation and rising third-party charges justify an uplift in the range of £79 to £100.

A specific proposal to increase the fee to £79 was put forward by one of the trade associations on the basis that it would go some way to reflecting inflationary pressures and align with the £79 fee used in certain civil court enforcement and legacy tribunal procedures.

Relevant businesses expressed mixed views, with preferences generally ranging from £40 to £79, while a smaller number favoured regular reviews rather than a permanently fixed figure. Regardless of the preferred level, there was broad consensus that any debt recovery fee charged to motorists should be linked to the reasonable costs of recovery activities, such as tracing and correspondence, rather than include an additional uplift unrelated to those costs.

Q13a: Do you have any data or evidence relating to the number of private parking cases being taken to County Court in England and Wales, or the Sheriff Court in Scotland? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Yes	No	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	309 (8.7%)	3095 (87.0%)	0 (0.0%)	155 (4.4%)
Motorist representative organisation	2 (11.8%)	12 (70.6%)	0 (0.0%)	3 (17.6%)
Private parking operator	48 (49.0%)	40 (40.8%)	1 (1.0%)	9 (9.2%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	0 (0.0%)	4 (80.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (20.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	9 (13.4%)	46 (68.7%)	0 (0.0%)	12 (17.9%)
Debt recovery agency	5 (71.4%)	1 (14.3%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (14.3%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	4 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	5 (10.0%)	39 (78.0%)	0 (0.0%)	6 (12.0%)
Other	3 (15.8%)	12 (63.2%)	0 (0.0%)	4 (21.1%)
Not answered	2 (11.1%)	6 (33.3%)	0 (0.0%)	10 (55.6%)

Q13b: If yes, please explain your answer and feel free to provide information on why private parking cases are ending up in the courts. (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

The majority of motorists, motorist representative organisations, and relevant businesses stated they had limited or no knowledge, but some alleged that courts were being exploited by bulk litigation firms. Anecdotal accounts from motorists were provided, including personal stories of County Court Judgements (CCJs), ANPR errors, and allegations of payment under duress, with individuals described as paying to avoid higher charges or further court escalation, even when charges were deemed unjust. This was accompanied by calls for greater transparency from operators on litigation volumes and outcomes.

Parking operators provided anecdotal evidence on court referrals, with many claiming that relatively few cases progress to court. Similar views were expressed by trade associations, landowners, law firms, and debt recovery agents, which described court action as rare and a last resort, used only where other recovery efforts have failed. Most respondents acknowledged that they did not hold direct evidence or statistics to support these claims, but some argued that the high proportion of uncontested cases suggests that motorists generally accept liability for the charge.

Q14a: Do you have any data and evidence relating to the impact of debt recovery fees on industry and consumers? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Yes	No	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	485 (13.4%)	2961 (82.1%)	0 (0.0%)	161 (4.5%)
Motorist representative organisation	5 (26.3%)	11 (57.9%)	0 (0.0%)	3 (15.8%)
Private parking operator	43 (45.7%)	42 (44.7%)	0 (0.0%)	9 (9.6%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	0 (0.0%)	5 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	8 (12.1%)	46 (69.7%)	0 (0.0%)	12 (18.2%)
Debt recovery agency	6 (85.7%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (14.3%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	3 (75.0%)	1 (25.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	13 (25.0%)	33 (63.5%)	0 (0.0%)	6 (11.5%)
Other	2 (10.0%)	12 (60.0%)	0 (0.0%)	6 (30.0%)
Not answered	3 (16.7%)	5 (27.8%)	0 (0.0%)	10 (55.6%)

Q14b: If yes, please provide this information. (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

Although the majority of motorists acknowledged they lacked data, many motorists and motorist representative organisations were of the view that debt recovery fees cause fear, financial stress, and inflict disproportionate burdens. Many respondents considered unfair operator practices to be widespread, arguing that the £70 cap places a disproportionate financial burden on motorists. Respondents described a system which is stressful and causes anxiety, with some describing situations where a decision was taken to pay the charge simply to make them disappear, regardless of whether they believed the charge to be justified.

Operators, debt recovery agents, trade associations, and landowners all expressed a view that debt recovery fees are essential for industry sustainability, arguing that fees encourage payment and engagement with the enforcement process. A minority from these groups acknowledged that the occurrence of some poor practices by some industry actors has damaged public trust.

Most relevant businesses responses saw debt recovery fees as a way to influence payment at the debt recovery stage while also being a key factor in the number of complaints from motorists.

Government response to debt recovery fees

The government identified an error in the analysis produced by the department to help inform consultation responses. The error appeared in the published consultation document at Annex B (the analysis on the impact of different debt recovery fee levels). The analysis drew on information provided during the Call for Evidence in 2023 regarding profits of debt recovery agents. It presented an average profit margin of approximately 63% and that debt recovery agents would ‘break even’ with a fee of approximately £26. The correct analysis, based on the same available data, shows that profit margins across the industry range from ‑13.8% to 18% over the period 2019/20 to 2021/22, with an average margin of 4.6%. It is also noted these years overlapped with the Covid-19 pandemic, during which travel restrictions and reduced vehicle movements are likely to have affected parking activity and, consequently, debt recovery profitability.

The government will lay the Code retaining the existing £70 debt recovery fee cap, which appears in the Sector Single Code. Retaining the £70 cap from the Sector Single Code in this version of the government Code is considered to be an interim measure to ensure motorists are no worse off while the evidence base is strengthened and the appropriate long-term approach is considered. The government intends to consult again on debt recovery fee levels, including the potential impact of banning debt recovery fees altogether and of introducing a lower debt recovery fee cap. When considering the consultation responses, the government was concerned by claims that parking operators may profit from successful debt recovery activity and intends to explore this further in the next consultation.

We are also aware of the CMA’s published concerns about additional fees and that the CMA will be undertaking further work on this matter. The government takes these concerns very seriously and will continue liaising with the CMA about its ongoing work in this area and will consider the breadth of the next consultation to explore these issues.

Taking into account the responses to the consultation, this Code will introduce stronger standards for debt recovery activity associated with private parking charges. This includes banning the use of misleading or intimidating language that could incorrectly imply recipients have fewer rights than they do; requiring debt recovery communications to be clear, accurate and proportionate; and requiring recipients to be signposted to GOV.UK where there will be a guide for motorists so they can better understand the debt recovery process and the options available to them.

Signage: question 15

Q15a: Do you agree that the government Code should drop the reference to 60cm x 80cm signage size representing best practice, noting the proposed requirement that signs be sufficiently large to be visible from a distance and legible on approach? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Support (Strongly agree/agree)	Oppose (Strongly disagree/ disagree)	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	1,911 (46.3%)	1,641 (39.8%)	502 (12.2%)	66 (1.6%)
Motorist representative organisation	5 (25.0%)	10 (50.0%)	3 (15.0%)	2 (10.0%)
Private parking operator	88 (82.2%)	16 (14.9%)	2 (1.9%)	1 (0.9%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	2 (40.0%)	3 (60.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	49 (57.0%)	14 (16.3%)	14 (16.3%)	9 (10.5%)
Debt recovery agency	5 (62.5%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (12.5%)	2 (25.0%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	3 (75.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (25.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	31 (53.5%)	15 (25.9%)	8 (13.8%)	4 (6.9%)
Other	4 (20.0%)	8 (40.0%)	4 (20.0%)	4 (20.0%)
Not answered	6 (33.3%)	2 (11.2%)	1 (5.6%)	9 (50.0%)

Q15b: Please explain your answer. (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

Motorists and motorist representative organisations expressed a range of views between those advocating fixed minimum standards and those favouring a more contextual approach. While there was broad agreement that signage should be visible, many argued that a one-size-fits-all requirement would be inappropriate and that compliance should instead be assessed based on context, clarity, and legibility from a reasonable distance. However, others favoured fixed standards, expressing concern that the industry could exploit vague requirements to maximise parking charges and that a subjective approach could lead to inconsistent or misleading signage.

Operators, trade associations, debt recovery agents, and landowners largely supported removing the best practice requirement, arguing that flexibility is needed to accommodate diverse car park layouts and circumstances. These groups emphasised visibility and clarity over prescribed dimensions, stating that operators should be able to design signage appropriate to the location and context. A minority, however, highlighted the reputational risks associated with unclear or poorly positioned signs, noting that inadequate signage can drive complaints and negative public perception, even where operators are compliant with the rules.

Government response to signage

Consistent with consumer protection legislation, parking terms and conditions should be clear, visible and easy to understand, enabling motorists to make informed decisions before parking. The government recognises that effective signage must be adaptable to the characteristics of the car park in which it is located. Therefore, taking into account the responses to the consultation, the Code will not include the best practice expectation that signs should measure at least 60cm by 80cm. This will provide operators with greater flexibility to design signage appropriate to individual sites whilst adhering to relevant consumer legislation. The requirement remains that signage must be sufficiently visible and legible to enable motorists to make informed decisions about the terms and conditions of parking. Conformity assessment bodies will ultimately determine whether signage meets the visibility and legibility requirements set out in the Code. The Code has been updated to clarify that sans serif means straight edges rather than highly legible which is considered more subjective.

Pay before exit in car parks using ANPR: question 16

Q16a: Do you agree that a parking charge should not be issued to a motorist who makes a full payment before leaving a car park which uses ANPR? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Support (Strongly agree/agree)	Oppose (Strongly disagree/ disagree)	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	3,919 (95.1%)	98 (2.3%)	57 (1.4%)	46 (1.1%)
Motorist representative organisation	18 (90.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (10.0%)
Private parking operator	97 (90.7%)	5 (4.6%)	3 (2.8%)	2 (1.9%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	5 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	65 (75.6%)	8 (9.3%)	4 (4.7%)	9 (10.5%)
Debt recovery agency	6 (75.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (25.0%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	4 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	49 (84.4%)	5 (8.6%)	1 (1.7%)	3 (5.2%)
Other	15 (75.0%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (10.0%)	3 (15.0%)
Not answered	7 (38.9%)	2 (11.1%)	0 (0.0%)	9 (50.0%)

Q16b: Please explain your answer. (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

All respondent groups supported the proposal that motorists should not receive a parking charge where they have made full payment before leaving an ANPR-controlled car park, viewing it as a fair measure that would reduce charges arising from system limitations.

Operators and both trade associations highlighted that this proposal is consistent with the existing Sector Single Code and necessary to maintain public trust. Many operators stressed that the purpose of ANPR is to ensure compliance with payment requirements, not to penalise motorists who have already paid. One of the trade associations suggested extending this protection to free-to-use ANPR sites that require motorists to enter their vehicle registration details at a terminal.

A small minority of operators opposed the blanket adoption of this standard and instead proposed exceptions, such as for repeat offenders or cases involving fraudulent payments.

Government response for paying before exit in car parks using ANPR

Taking into account the responses in the consultation the government considers enforcement in private car parks should be proportionate. Motorists should not be issued charges where full payment is made before the motorist exits the car park with their vehicle. The government considers that this standard will reduce the risk of parking charges being issued where a motorist is unable to pay on arrival, for example due to insufficient cash or a lack of internet access.

The government Code will include an exemption in the Appeals Charter as follows: “In car parks where ANPR is in use and a tariff must be paid, motorists will not receive a parking charge where they pay in full before they exit the car park. For parking periods over 24 hours, the payment must be made within 24 hours of arriving to avoid receiving a parking charge”. This standard seeks to account for existing operational processes.

To further protect motorists, the government accepts the suggestion from a trade association to extend this protection to motorists using free-to-park ANPR-controlled car parks. Therefore, provided a motorist enters their registration details in the terminal/ device provided prior to departure, they too should be exempt from a charge. The same provision applies as stated above for parking events over 24 hours.

The government expects parking operators to take all necessary steps to ensure parking charges are not issued in these circumstances. If a parking charge is issued in these circumstances, operators must uphold the appeal and cancel the charge where the motorist has evidence that payment was made or that they were entitled to park free of charge, such as a genuine customer of a business served by the car park, provided all other applicable terms and conditions were met.

Consideration and grace periods: question 17

Q17. Do you believe the details set out in Table B.1 remain appropriate for use in the proposed new Government Code? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Yes	No	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	1222 (35.6%)	2121 (61.7%)	0 (0.0%)	92 (2.7%)
Motorist representative organisation	8 (50.0%)	6 (37.5%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (12.5%)
Private parking operator	42 (41.6%)	57 (56.4%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (2.0%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	3 (60.0%)	2 (40.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	0 (0.0%)	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	40 (54.8%)	23 (31.5%)	0 (0.0%)	10 (13.7%)
Debt recovery agency	2 (25.0%)	4 (50.0%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (25.0%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	1 (25.0%)	2 (50.0%)	1 (25.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	25 (49.0%)	24 (47.1%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (3.9%)
Other	2 (12.5%)	10 (62.5%)	0 (0.0%)	4 (25.0%)
Not answered	3 (17.6%)	5 (29.4%)	0 (0.0%)	9 (52.9%)

Summary of consultation responses

Views were mixed on Table B.1. Motorists, motoring representative organisations, landowners and relevant businesses emphasised the importance of straightforward rules for both consideration and grace period in reducing disputes and improving compliance. Others called for longer consideration and grace periods, particularly for vulnerable groups, arguing that short time limits can be used unfairly by operators. When considering suggestions on timings, respondents mainly focused on grace periods, with those favouring more generous periods generally proposing 15 to 20 minutes to better reflect real-world conditions, such as congestion when exiting car parks.

Operators, trade associations and debt recovery agents generally preferred the timings set out in the Sector Single Code, arguing that they better reflect operational realities. Many cautioned against changing the status quo, maintaining that the Sector Single Code has been refined through experience and should inform the government Code. Respondents also recognised the need for clarity and called for guidance that reflects current technology and the diversity of parking sites.

Government response to consideration and grace periods

While the government notes the views of operators, trade associations and debt recovery agents, it has concluded that greater consistency is required across the industry to better protect motorists from unfair charges. Taking into account the responses to the consultation, the government has therefore amended Table B.1 to introduce a mandatory minimum five-minute consideration period at all sites, except pre-booked parking facilities. In addition, all sites other than short-stay car parks must provide a minimum 10-minute grace period after the parking period has ended. Short-stay sites, defined as those offering parking for less than 30 minutes, are designed to support rapid turnover, and applying a grace period would undermine that purpose.

Operators must give due consideration to the circumstances stated in a motorist’s appeal when deciding whether an appeal should be upheld and recognise that the Code’s consideration and grace periods are minimum requirements, not automatic thresholds for enforcement.

The government considers that this response also satisfies the recommendation from the CMA, as set out in its letter to the government in April 2025, which recommended that government clarify that the 5‑minute consideration period is a minimum rather than a maximum and review whether five minutes is sufficient. However, the CMA’s recommendation that operators should add the full consideration period to the end of a parking session, in addition to the grace period, unless they can show the motorist accepted the parking contract earlier, was considered to be outside the scope of this consultation and will therefore be considered as part of a future consultation.

Reduced charge for mitigating circumstances and additional mitigation for the Appeals Charter: questions 18 to 21

Q18a: Do you think that the Code should include a reduced charge for a parking charge that meets one or more of the mitigating circumstances or do you think that the parking charge should be cancelled? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Reduced charge	Cancellation of charge	Not sure	Not answered
Motorist	563 (13.7%)	3267 (79.3%)	234 (5.7%)	56 (1.4%)
Motorist representative organisation	4 (20.0%)	14 (70.0%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (10.0%)
Private parking operator	91 (85.0%)	5 (4.7%)	8 (7.5%)	3 (2.8%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	5 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	55 (64.7%)	13 (15.3%)	12 (14.1%)	5 (5.9%)
Debt recovery agency	6 (75.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (25.0%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	3 (75.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (25.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	22 (37.9%)	27 (46.6%)	6 (10.3%)	3 (5.2%)
Other	1 (5.0%)	12 (60.0%)	4 (20.0%)	3 (15.0%)
Not answered	2 (11.1%)	7 (38.9%)	0 (0.0%)	9 (50.0%)

Q18b: Please explain your answer. (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

Motorists and motorist representative organisations strongly preferred the full cancellation of charges in mitigating circumstances over reduced fees. There was consensus that fairness is undermined when a reduced charge is applied to genuine mitigating factors, this contributed to a belief some operators prioritise revenue over fair outcomes. Emphasis was also placed on a need for discretion and for compassion, so motorists are treated equitably.

Private parking operators, trade associations, and debt recovery agents argued that a reduced parking charge preserves deterrence while emphasising that it still recognises mitigating circumstances. Many responses argued that full cancellation would be disproportionate, particularly for repeat offenders exploiting loopholes and would set a precedent that weakens the enforceability of terms and conditions. Responses showed a clear feeling that motorists who have breached terms should still bear some responsibility.

Most landowners supported a reduced charge rather than full cancellation in certain mitigating circumstances, viewing it as a balanced approach that maintains deterrence while recognising genuine hardship or mistakes. Some respondents noted that flexibility is important, allowing operators or appeals services to exercise judgement where there is clear evidence of exceptional circumstances. A smaller group preferred full cancellation in genuine hardship cases, saying this would humanise the system and improve public confidence.

Q19a: If there is to be a reduced charge, do you think that it should be the £20 as currently implemented in the Industry Code? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Support (Strongly agree/agree)	Oppose (Strongly disagree/ disagree)	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	1,349 (36.6%)	2,078 (56.5%)	0 (0.0%)	254 (6.9%)
Motorist representative organisation	5 (27.8%)	9 (50.0%)	0 (0.0%)	4 (22.2%)
Private parking operator	86 (81.9%)	17 (16.2%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (1.9%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	4 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	51 (73.9%)	9 (13.0%)	0 (0.0%)	9 (13.0%)
Debt recovery agency	6 (75.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (25.0%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	4 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	29 (54.7%)	20 (37.8%)	0 (0.0%)	4 (7.5%)
Other	3 (18.8%)	8 (50.0%)	0 (0.0%)	5 (31.2%)
Not answered	3 (17.7%)	3 (17.7%)	0 (0.0%)	11 (64.7%)

Q19b: Please explain your answer (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

The majority of motorists, along with half of motoring representative organisations, opposed the £20 reduced charge, arguing that £20 represents a “token fine” that still penalises motorists for events beyond their control. Concern about the £20 figure was also expressed by some relevant businesses, many of whom suggested that, if a reduced charge were to exist, it should only cover administrative costs. A figure of £10 was proposed by some businesses as it was felt this would cover what was viewed as a largely digital process.

A £20 charge was seen as a reasonable figure by operators, trade associations, landowners, and debt recovery agents, who viewed it as a fair and proportionate compromise. It was argued that the current £20 figure has worked effectively, meaning there was no justification for change. Some motorists and relevant businesses also expressed support, on the basis that it was clear and represented a reasonable compromise.

A small number of responses across various groups, most notably operators and landowners, called for an increase, with some suggesting a link to CPI; however, this was cautioned against by most respondents on the basis of proportionality and reputational consequences.

Q20a: How is the first charge provision applied in practice? (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

Many motorists acknowledged having limited familiarity with this issue, as did many landowners who were in agreement that operators should clearly explain to motorists that this is a one-off concession, not an ongoing allowance. 

Some motorist representative organisations stated that the provision is rarely offered proactively and is often subject to unclear conditions from operators. They made calls for greater transparency, including published criteria that prioritise genuine first-time errors and accessibility considerations.

The majority of operators and trade associations saw the first charge provision as a gesture of goodwill, enabling them to recognise genuine mistakes, but stressed it should not be extended repeatedly otherwise deterrence would be undermined. Relevant businesses were also generally supportive of a one-time leniency model, but did stress the need for clear eligibility rules, auditable tracking, and safeguards against repeat abuse.

Q20b: Bearing in mind your understanding of how the provision is applied in practice - what arguments do you think support the reduced charge applying to only the first parking charge? (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

Motorists and motoring representative organisations argued that if a reduced parking charge is justified once, it should be justified again. A feeling of mistrust was evident, with many arguing that limiting the reduced charge to a first contravention lacks transparency and disproportionately benefits operators.

A charity raised concerns about the need to protect the integrity of the Blue Badge Scheme, with suggestions that allowing a reduced charge repeatedly would undermine the Scheme which relies on the Blue Badge being presented. The charity argued that where a motorist can subsequently provide evidence of a valid Blue Badge and there are genuine mitigating circumstances, such as illness or vehicle breakdown, a first charge should be cancelled or reduced. The charity also argued that repeated failures to display a Blue Badge should attract the full parking charge, on the grounds that this would help maintain the integrity of the Blue Badge Scheme and encourage compliance with its requirements.

Operators, trade associations, and the majority of landowners and relevant businesses argued that repeat offenders should not benefit from multiple reduced charges, as this would weaken deterrence. These groups drew attention to the role a single reduced charge plays in influencing behavioural change, with suggestions that drivers would learn from the first incident and be more aware in future.

The dominant view among landowners and businesses was that a first-time reduction is a gesture of goodwill towards those who make an unintentional error. Once motorists have been made aware of the rules, full charges are justified for subsequent contraventions. There was strong support for a standardised list of acceptable evidence (for example, medical notes, breakdown or recovery paperwork, time-stamped receipts, and photographic evidence).

Several respondents linked this current practice to deterrence, arguing that if reductions were available repeatedly, the system would be open to abuse and encourage non-compliance.

Q21a: Do you agree that an appeal decision should be made in favour of the motorist when a motorist can provide reasonable evidence that they had no choice but to breach the terms and conditions of a private car park? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Support (Strongly agree/agree)	Oppose (Strongly disagree/ disagree)	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	3,828 (92.9%)	110 (2.7%)	119 (2.9%)	63 (1.5%)
Motorist representative organisation	15 (75.0%)	1 (5.0%)	3 (15.0%)	1 (5.0%)
Private parking operator	33 (30.8%)	65 (60.8%)	5 (4.7%)	4 (3.7%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	1 (20.0%)	4 (80.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	0 (0.0%)	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	30 (34.9%)	36 (41.9%)	14 (16.3%)	6 (7.0%)
Debt recovery agency	1 (12.5%)	5 (62.5%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (25.0%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	1 (25.0%)	3 (75.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	40 (67.8%)	10 (17.0%)	7 (11.9%)	2 (3.4%)
Other	14 (70.0%)	2 (10.0%)	2 (10.0%)	2 (10.0%)
Not answered	7 (38.9%)	1 (5.6%)	1 (5.6%)	9 (50.0%)

Q21b: If you agree, please give examples of situations where you think this protection should apply. (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

Motorists and motorist representative organisations strongly supported this principle, arguing that the current appeals process is ineffective, with a perception that operators reject appeals regardless of the evidence provided, and that the proposal would improve fairness and accountability. Respondents frequently cited overrun medical appointments, blocked exits, illness, and vehicle breakdowns as examples of circumstances in which a parking charge should be cancelled where reasonable evidence is provided.

A minority of motorists expressed concerns that such a principle could be open to abuse, a view echoed by operators, trade associations, landowners, and debt recovery agents, all of whom highlighted the ambiguity of what constitutes having “no choice”. Many of these respondents nevertheless recognised that genuine emergencies, such as medical incidents, vehicle breakdowns, or sudden illness, can make it impossible to comply with parking terms and called on operators to show sensitivity in such circumstances. There were strong calls from operators, trade associations, debt recovery agents and relevant businesses for the concept of “no choice” to be clearly defined to avoid ambiguity, with examples including medical emergencies, safety-critical situations, and vehicle breakdowns.

Government response on reduced charges and additional Appeals Charter mitigations

Taking into account consultation responses, the government is committed to raising standards that deliver fairer and more proportionate outcomes for motorists and recognises that unfair parking charges can negatively affect wellbeing and exacerbate cost of living pressures.

The government considers that leaving mitigating circumstances open to interpretation could create confusion, lead to inconsistent outcomes and further undermine trust in the parking industry. In reviewing Annex F.3 Appeals in the Withdrawn Code and the Appeals Charter in the Sector Single Code, the government has carefully considered its impact on motorists who inadvertently fail to comply with parking terms and has taken into account the responses to the consultation.

The government agrees with respondents that it is unfair to apply even a reduced charge where the circumstances are outside of a motorist’s control. The Appeals Charter has therefore been revised to distinguish between circumstances where a parking charge should not be issued, should be cancelled at first-stage appeal, or should be reduced to £20.

Circumstances where parking charges should be cancelled on appeal are as follows:

• where the driver has paid the tariff but made a minor keying error, e.g. 0 instead of o; I instead of L; 1 instead of I) and this has not been picked up by the operator at the time of issuing a parking charge
• a vehicle paused on a private road network because the driver needs to check directions e.g. on an industrial estate where the driver has a legitimate need to access premises within that estate
• a vehicle has been driven onto relevant land due to an instruction to the driver by a member of the emergency services, or an invitation or instruction from the landholder(s) or parking operator
• a vehicle has been driven onto relevant land due to an emergency which could not be avoided due to the exceptional nature of an incident outside of the control of the driver, e.g. serious illness
• where the driver or a passenger in the vehicle suffers the onset of illness
• where the driver or a passenger is delayed by overrunning medical appointment
• where the driver suffers delays due to childcare arrangements
• where the vehicle has broken down
• where one or more payment machines were out of operation, and no reasonable alternative payment options were available (e.g. by phone or a reasonably near and visible payment machine is in working order)
• where the parking operator has breached an obligation in the government Code relating to the issuing of a parking charge
• where the parking operator has breached an obligation in the government Code resulting in the driver being unable to adhere to the relevant obligations of the car park
• where the driver is physically unable to leave the car park in time i.e. where they are stuck in traffic within the car park resulting in the driver exceeding any time restrictions relating to the parking tariff or where they have considered the terms and conditions and chosen not to park

Taking into account the responses to questions 17 and 21 of the consultation, an additional circumstance has been added to the Appeals Charter so appeals will be upheld in favour of the motorist, with no additional charge, where the driver is physically unable to leave the car park in time. The government considers that this will be beneficial for those using busy car parks and where motorists are unable to exit through no fault of their own. Appeals should be accepted by the operator providing the motorist remains in the vehicle and it should apply to those who have considered the terms and conditions and decided not to park despite then being delayed on exit through no fault of their own.

Circumstances where motorists should be offered a £20 reduced charge are as follows:

• where a parking permit has not been displayed but the driver subsequently supplies a copy of the permit they hold that would have been valid at the time identified in the parking charge notice
• where the driver has evidence that the tariff has been paid but has entered the wrong car registration i.e. the registration of a partner or a previous car registration
• where the vehicle would have been permitted to park, but the driver failed to enter their registration into a terminal/device before leaving the site

The government accepts the principle of a £20 reduced charge as an appropriate mechanism for improving proportionality. The government does not consider the circumstances above to be open to abuse as the motorist still incurs a financial consequence for breaching the terms and conditions. The lower amount reflects the unintentional non-compliance whilst allowing the operator to recoup most of the typical cost of issuing a parking charge, which according to the trade associations is £25 on average. The government encourages operators to adopt motorist-centred processes to mitigate the risk of accidental non-compliance in these situations. The government considers it appropriate to remove the first-occasion principle for these circumstances as the mistake could legitimately happen more than once and may particularly impact vulnerable motorists.

A £20 reduced charge will also apply where a Blue Badge has not been displayed but the holder supplies a copy of the Blue Badge they hold that would have been valid at the time of their appeal. In recognition of the feedback from the charity, the first occasion principle will remain in this circumstance only with further appeals being dealt with at the discretion of the operator based on individual circumstances.

The government will ask the Scrutiny and Oversight Board to keep the list of reduced charges under review to ensure that future iterations of the Code promote fairness and proportionality for motorists.

The government remains open to updating the Appeals Charter (at Clause 19 within the Code) with further circumstances to better protect and support motorists whilst enabling parking operators to effectively manage their car parks. The government will ask the Scrutiny and Oversight Board to keep this under review.

Process for appealing parking charges: questions 22 to 24

Q22a: Do you agree that where an appeal outside of the normal 28 day appeal period is considered, the 28 day period should restart and that any enforcement action should be paused, or where the enforcement action is court proceedings the parking operator should be required to apply for a stay in those proceedings? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Support (Strongly agree/agree)	Oppose (Strongly disagree/ disagree)	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	3,583 (87.0%)	128 (3.1%)	293 (7.1%)	116 (2.8%)
Motorist representative organisation	13 (65.0%)	0 (0.0%)	3 (15.0%)	4 (20.0%)
Private parking operator	33 (30.9%)	64 (59.9%)	5 (4.7%)	5 (4.7%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	3 (60.0%)	2 (40.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	0 (0.0%)	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	44 (51.2%)	20 (23.2%)	10 (11.6%)	12 (14.0%)
Debt recovery agency	3 (37.5%)	4 (50.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (12.5%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	1 (25.0%)	3 (75.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	40 (67.8%)	8 (13.6%)	7 (11.9%)	4 (6.8%)
Other	14 (70.0%)	1 (5.0%)	2 (10.0%)	3 (15.0%)
Not answered	7 (38.9%)	1 (5.6%)	1 (5.6%)	9 (50.0%)

Q22b: Please explain your answer (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

Motorists and motorist representative organisations felt that a restart was justified where evidence of exceptional circumstances was provided, viewing the proposal as fair and beneficial in preventing cases from progressing unnecessarily to the courts. Examples of such circumstances included delayed correspondence, illness, and unavoidable travel that prevented motorists from responding within the relevant timeframe. Distrust of the industry was evident, with some respondents viewing the inflexibility of the current process as a profit-driven strategy adopted by some operators.

Operators and trade associations largely opposed the proposal, arguing that it would disrupt the enforcement process and create unnecessary opportunities for motorists to abuse the system and delay payment of legitimate charges. These concerns were accompanied by warnings that the proposal would increase administrative costs, which could ultimately be passed on to compliant motorists. Despite these concerns, operators recognised the need for safeguards to allow enforcement activity to be paused in narrowly defined circumstances. This need was also acknowledged by debt recovery agents and landowners, both of whom emphasised the importance of strict evidential thresholds to prevent abuse. Caution was, however, expressed by several respondents, including operators, trade associations and landowners, that motorists could wait until enforcement action had begun before submitting an appeal in order to reset the process. Attention was also drawn to the fact that the pausing of court proceedings is outside the control of operators and remains a matter for the courts.

Government response on the process for appealing parking charges

Taking into account the consultation responses, the government is committed to ensuring no motorist is expected to pay a parking charge which is defined by the Code as being unfair. Therefore, the government considers it proportionate to allow motorists to submit an appeal outside the normal 28-day window if exceptional circumstances prevent them from appealing earlier in the enforcement process. Exceptional circumstances must include the following, but this list is not exhaustive and other scenarios outside this list should also be considered on their individual merit:

• where the addressee only discovers and can show that a notice of parking charge has been issued in their name after the 28-day appeal period
• holiday or extended work trip
• hospitalised as an in-patient
• property vacant (living elsewhere due to renovations or displacement due to emergency)
• family emergency causing recipient to be away from home (care duties, bereavement)
• moving property resulting in a short overlap period where mail goes to the old address
• parking charge delivered to the wrong address through no fault of motorist

The government recognises that the pausing of court proceedings is outside the control of operators and that it would therefore be unreasonable to require them to guarantee such an outcome. The Code will instead require operators to apply for a pause in court proceedings where an appeal is accepted outside the standard timeframe. It will be possible to report operators that fail to apply for a pause court proceedings in these circumstances to their conformity assessment body, with such failures capable of being treated as non-compliance with the Code.

The Code has also been updated for clarity to reflect that enforcement proceedings and/or debt recovery must either not commence or, where commenced, must be suspended until the second-stage appeal outcome is known by the driver or keeper.

Q23a: Do you agree that a motorist should be allowed to appeal after the parking charge has been paid where i) the parking charge had to be paid in order to release a vehicle e.g. on site to release a barrier (Multiple choice) [Second part of the question continued below]

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Support (Strongly agree/agree)	Oppose (Strongly disagree/ disagree)	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	3,795 (94.9%)	109 (2.8%)	93 (2.3%)	2 (0.1%)
Motorist representative organisation	15 (83.4%)	1 (5.6%)	1 (5.6%)	1 (5.6%)
Private parking operator	38 (36.6%)	58 (55.8%)	8 (7.7%)	0 (0.0%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	2 (40.0%)	1 (20.0%)	2 (40.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	0 (0.0%)	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	42 (59.2%)	17 (24.0%)	11 (15.5%)	1 (1.4%)
Debt recovery agency	2 (28.6%)	5 (71.4%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	1 (25.0%)	3 (75.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	42 (75.0%)	6 (10.7%)	7 (12.5%)	1 (1.8%)
Other	16 (80.0%)	1 (5.0%)	1 (5.0%)	2 (10.0%)
Not answered	7 (77.8%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (22.2%)	0 (0.0%)

Q23a (ii): Evidence subsequently identified suggests wrongdoing by the parking operator in respect of the issue of the notice? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Support (Strongly agree/agree)	Oppose (Strongly disagree/ disagree)	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	3,813 (96.3%)	64 (1.6%)	78 (2.0%)	2 (0.1%)
Motorist representative organisation	17 (94.5%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (5.6%)
Private parking operator	54 (52.4%)	48 (46.6%)	1 (1.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	4 (80.0%)	1 (20.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	0 (0.0%)	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	56 (78.9%)	6 (8.4%)	8 (11.3%)	1 (1.4%)
Debt recovery agency	2 (28.6%)	5 (71.5%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	2 (50.0%)	2 (50.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	41 (74.5%)	7 (12.8%)	6 (10.9%)	1 (1.8%)
Other	16 (80.0%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (10.0%)	2 (10.0%)
Not answered	7 (77.8%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (22.2%)	0 (0.0%)

Q23b: Please explain your answer (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

Motorists and motorist representative organisations were overwhelmingly supportive of allowing appeals after payment in both scenarios. Barrier release was specifically viewed by many as inherently unjust, while operator wrongdoing was seen as an irrefutable basis for retrospective appeal. A strong majority of motorists (>95%) viewed this principle as a necessary inclusion to promote fairness and encourage greater operator compliance with the Code. Most relevant businesses also supported allowing post-payment appeals in tightly defined circumstances, particularly where payment was required to secure the release of a vehicle or where operator wrongdoing is subsequently evidenced.

For both scenarios the two trade associations opposed allowing motorists to appeal after payment, arguing that payment represents case closure and acceptance of liability. Where a breach of the Code occurs, the trade associations felt that such misconduct should be addressed through regulatory sanctions rather than through post-payment appeals. Operators also expressed scepticism on the basis that once payment had been received, a case should be considered settled ensuring closure for both parties. A minority did accept that where evidence clearly shows operator wrongdoing, a post-payment appeal may be justified but called for strict limits for when a retrospective appeal is allowed.

Moderate support for allowing post-payment appeals in clearly defined circumstances was expressed by landowners and debt recovery agents. The majority cautiously argued that appeals after payment should be exceptional and reserved for situations where new information demonstrates that a parking charge was issued incorrectly, for example, where payment was made but not recorded, or where an operator’s system malfunctioned.

Q24a: Do you agree that: If a parking charge notice is served but not responded to, the keeper may still identify the driver and that liability of the keeper falls in favour of that of the driver who may still then exercise their right of appeal? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Support (Strongly agree/agree)	Oppose (Strongly disagree/ disagree)	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	2,916 (74.4%)	245 (6.3%)	757 (19.3%)	3 (0.1%)
Motorist representative organisation	15 (88.2%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (11.8%)	0 (0.0%)
Private parking operator	81 (77.2%)	21 (20.0%)	3 (2.9%)	0 (0.0%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	4 (80.0%)	1 (20.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	32 (45.7%)	23 (32.9%)	14 (20.0%)	1 (1.4%)
Debt recovery agency	5 (71.4%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (28.6%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	3 (75.0%)	1 (25.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	39 (72.3%)	5 (9.3%)	10 (18.5%)	0 (0.0%)
Other	7 (36.9%)	5 (26.3%)	5 (26.3%)	2 (10.5%)
Not answered	3 (33.3%)	2 (22.2%)	4 (44.4%)	0 (0.0%)

Q24a (ii): Do you agree that if a notice to keeper is sent and an appeal is rejected, the keeper may still identify the driver and that liability of the keeper falls in favour of that of the driver who may still then exercise their right of appeal? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Support (Strongly agree/agree)	Oppose (Strongly disagree/ disagree)	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	2,768 (71.3%)	338 (8.7%)	776 (20.0%)	3 (0.1%)
Motorist representative organisation	14 (82.3%)	1 (5.9%)	2 (11.8%)	0 (0.0%)
Private parking operator	23 (21.9%)	80 (76.2%)	2 (1.9%)	0 (0.0%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	2 (40.0%)	3 (60.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	0 (0.0%)	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	18 (26.8%)	35 (52.3%)	13 (19.4%)	1 (1.5%)
Debt recovery agency	0 (0.0%)	5 (71.5%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (28.6%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	0 (0.0%)	4 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	32 (59.2%)	13 (24.1%)	9 (16.7%)	0 (0.0%)
Other	8 (42.2%)	4 (21.0%)	5 (26.3%)	2 (10.5%)
Not answered	3 (33.3%)	2 (22.2%)	4 (44.4%)	0 (0.0%)

Q24b. Please explain your answer (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

A majority of motorists and motorist representative organisations agreed that steps must be taken to ensure the right person is held responsible and appeal rights are preserved. An emphasis was placed on procedural fairness requiring opportunities to correct identification errors. This came alongside concerns that current industry practice shifts liability prematurely and without sufficient transparency.

Both trade associations, and some operators, supported allowing the driver to be identified and to appeal if no appeal has already been made, but strongly opposed giving the driver the right to appeal once the keeper’s appeal has already been rejected. This was framed as a matter of legal compliance with keeper liability rules, and they stressed that double appeals would add delay and undermine finality. Some landowners accepted that flexibility could be justified in exceptional cases, however most objected to the two principles, arguing that the registered keeper has the clearest link to the vehicle and should be responsible if they fail to name the driver promptly.

A majority of relevant businesses broadly supported preserving the driver’s right to appeal where identified and transferring liability to the driver within clear time limits; many stressed that keepers, particularly fleets and lease companies, should not be held liable where the driver can reasonably be identified and given a fair appeal.

Government response to the process for appealing parking charges

Having taken consultation responses into account, the government believes that in both scenarios it is fair and proportionate to allow motorists to appeal after payment, and it also creates an incentive for parking operators to comply with the Code and avoid issuing parking charges incorrectly. To ensure cases are progressed in a timely manner, the Code will introduce a 30-day time limit for submitting a post-payment appeal in both circumstances. This reflects a balance between ensuring access to a fair redress mechanism for motorists and managing any operational impact on parking operators.

With regard to whether the keeper may still identify the driver, the government has carefully reviewed the consultation responses and examined the provisions in section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and will not include clause 8.3.1(e) of the Withdrawn Code from 2022 in the Code. This is because the consultation responses did not demonstrate a need for the PoFA framework to be altered. Instead, responses emphasised that motorists required better understanding of the keeper liability rules. Responses from industry highlighted that allowing liability to be transferred back to the driver would lead to uncertainty and lack of finality with enforcement becoming unworkable. Content on GOV.UK will be updated which will include information aimed at helping motorists better understand the keeper liability rules.

Where the parking tariff exceeds the parking charge: questions 25 and 26

Q25a: Do you agree with the proposal to clarify that where the parking tariff exceeds the parking charge, the full payment of the tariff may be pursued alongside payment of the parking charge? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Support (Strongly agree/agree)	Oppose (Strongly disagree/ disagree)	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	1,391 (33.7%)	1,660 (40.3%)	874 (21.2%)	195 (4.7%)
Motorist representative organisation	4 (20.0%)	10 (50.0%)	3 (15.0%)	3 (15.0%)
Private parking operator	93 (87.0%)	2 (1.8%)	8 (7.5%)	4 (3.7%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	4 (80.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (20.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	57 (66.2%)	3 (3.5%)	11 (12.8%)	15 (17.4%)
Debt recovery agency	6 (75.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (25.0%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	4 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	33 (55.9%)	14 (23.8%)	5 (8.5%)	7 (11.9%)
Other	8 (40.0%)	5 (25.0%)	2 (10.0%)	5 (25.0%)
Not answered	4 (22.2%)	4 (22.2%)	1 (5.6%)	9 (50.0%)

Q25b: Please explain your answer (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

A majority of motorists and motorist representative organisations opposed the principle that the full parking tariff should be pursued where it exceeds the parking charge, viewing this as an unfair double payment. Comparisons were made with other sectors, where penalties normally take the place of the original payment instead of being added to it. Respondents instead recommended that recovery be limited to the greater of the two sums, rather than both cumulatively. A notable proportion of respondents selected “Don’t know” when answering this question, suggesting that the existing provision may not have been well understood.

A majority of operators, trade associations, landowners and debt recovery agents supported the proposal, arguing that it is fair, lawful and necessary to recover the full costs incurred. They emphasised that motorists should not avoid paying parking tariffs simply because they have also incurred a parking charge. However, recognition was given by operators, landowners, and debt recovery agents of the risk of negative public perception if charges appear excessive and noted that communications surrounding the policy must therefore be fully transparent.

Q26a: For industry – What is the reasoning for the additional provision in the Industry Code (the Sector Single Code) that an additional £60 may be added to the unpaid tariff and that where a parking charge is issued in accordance with this, clause 8.2.2 of the Industry Code is not applicable? (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

As outlined above, a majority of motorists and motorist representative organisations were strongly opposed to the proposal to allow an additional charge to be added to unpaid parking tariffs.

A majority of operators and both trade associations supported the additional charge, arguing that it is necessary to recover enforcement costs not covered by the parking charge itself and to deter persistent non-payment. They contended that this is particularly important at high-tariff locations, such as airports.

Relevant businesses and landowners expressed a range of views. Some supported the proposal as a legitimate means of recovering genuine costs, while others questioned its necessity and the clarity of its application. Respondents emphasised that, if adopted, clear communication would be essential, including a straightforward explanation of the circumstances in which both a tariff debt and a parking charge could be pursued simultaneously. Some relevant businesses also highlighted that, when combined with early-payment discounts, the discounted parking charge could become the “cheapest way to park”, potentially undermining fairness and public confidence in the system.

Government response to where the parking tariff exceeds the parking charge

Taking into account the consultation responses, the government considers that allowing operators to pursue the unpaid tariff alongside a parking charge helps maintain compliance with parking terms and discourages deliberate non-payment. Without tariff pursuit, motorists using higher-tariff sites could be incentivised to wait for a parking charge to be issued before deciding whether to pay, particularly where the discounted parking charge is lower than the unpaid tariff. Allowing recovery of the tariff therefore helps ensure that parking tariffs are paid as intended, while the parking charge, supported by a 40% early payment discount, continues to act as the deterrent against non-compliance.

Having considered the consultation responses, it is evident that the current industry position as set out in the Sector Single Code is confusing. Therefore, the government will include a provision in the Code allowing the full parking tariff to be recovered alongside a parking charge where the unpaid tariff exceeds £60. Where payment is made within 14 days, a 40% reduction must be offered on the parking charge, but the tariff will not be reduced. Where payment is not made within 14 days, no reduction will apply to the parking charge. The accredited parking association will remain responsible for signing off which sites are eligible to pursue unpaid tariffs alongside the parking charge.

Data and oversight: questions 27 and 28

Q27a: Do you agree with the proposal that a government Code of Practice will mandate that the trade associations should collect data from their private parking operator members and share it with government and the Scrutiny and Oversight Board? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Support (Strongly agree/agree)	Oppose (Strongly disagree/ disagree)	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	3,600 (87.3%)	156 (3.8%)	252 (6.1%)	112 (2.7%)
Motorist representative organisation	17 (85.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (5.0%)	2 (10.0%)
Private parking operator	78 (72.9%)	20 (18.7%)	6 (5.6%)	3 (2.8%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	3 (60.0%)	2 (40.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	36 (41.9%)	15 (17.4%)	20 (23.3%)	15 (17.4%)
Debt recovery agency	5 (62.5%)	1 (12.5%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (25.0%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	3 (75.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (25.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	45 (76.3%)	3 (5.1%)	6 (10.2%)	5 (8.5%)
Other	13 (65.0%)	2 (10.0%)	3 (15.0%)	2 (10.0%)
Not answered	7 (38.9%)	1 (5.6%)	1 (5.6%)	9 (50.0%)

Q27b: Please explain your answer. (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

There was strong support among motorists, motorist representative organisations and trade associations for mandatory data collection. Most respondents considered transparency and accountability to be essential to improving standards across the parking industry and argued that independent oversight would help ensure the credibility of the reforms. Many motorists felt that greater transparency would help identify poor practice and strengthen accountability.

Support was also expressed by a majority of parking operators, debt recovery agents and relevant business representatives, with many recognising that data collection could improve transparency and public confidence in the industry. However, these groups raised concerns about the potential administrative burden of collecting and reporting data, as well as the risk of data being misused. Respondents emphasised the importance of appropriate privacy protections and safeguards for commercially sensitive information.

Most landowners supported the principle of collecting and publishing parking data, provided it is managed transparently and respects commercial sensitivities. Concern was expressed that excessive disclosure, particularly at site level, could reveal proprietary information or create security risks.

Government response on data

The government considers the collection of data on the operation of the private parking industry to be essential for assessing the efficacy of the Code. Taking into account the responses to the consultation, accredited parking associations will be required to collect and provide data from their members on key aspects of parking charge issuance, appeals and enforcement. To ensure that data is collected appropriately, the government will require accredited parking associations to operate under a robust information-sharing agreement with MHCLG as a condition of their accreditation by the Secretary of State. Data will also be collected from second-stage appeal services, conformity assessment bodies and stakeholders where it is considered relevant to assessing the efficacy of the Code. This data will be used by the government and, where deemed appropriate, the Scrutiny and Oversight Board to enable it to fulfil its function.

The Scrutiny and Oversight Board: question 28

Q28a: Do you agree that the Scrutiny and Oversight Board should be made up of people not associated with the private parking industry, motorist groups or government officials, so that they can independently review data on the Code’s efficacy? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Support (Strongly agree/agree)	Oppose (Strongly disagree/ disagree)	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	3,642 (88.4%)	228 (5.6%)	161 (3.9%)	89 (2.2%)
Motorist representative organisation	16 (80.0%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (10.0%)	2 (10.0%)
Private parking operator	65 (60.7%)	34 (31.8%)	6 (5.6%)	2 (1.9%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	2 (40.0%)	3 (60.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	48 (55.8%)	19 (22.1%)	12 (14.0%)	7 (8.1%)
Debt recovery agency	4 (50.0%)	2 (25.0%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (25.0%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	2 (50.0%)	2 (50.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	45 (76.2%)	9 (15.3%)	3 (5.1%)	2 (3.4%)
Other	15 (75.0%)	1 (5.0%)	1 (5.0%)	3 (15.0%)
Not answered	8 (44.5%)	1 (5.6%)	0 (0.0%)	9 (50.0%)

Q28b: Please explain your answer (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

There was strong support from motorists, motorist representative organisations, trade associations and other relevant businesses for an independent Scrutiny and Oversight Board free from vested interests. Many respondents considered transparency and independence to be fundamental to building trust in the Code. The trade associations noted that independence should not mean isolation and emphasised the importance of the Board maintaining structured engagement with stakeholders. Motorist representative organisations expressed support for having consumer rights experts on the Board.

Operators and debt recovery agents generally supported the principle of an independent Scrutiny and Oversight Board but argued that it should have access to industry expertise to ensure its recommendations are practical and deliverable. Some of these respondents warned that excluding industry perspectives entirely could result in unrealistic outcomes and stressed the need to balance independence with operational knowledge.

Government response on the Scrutiny and Oversight Board

The Scrutiny and Oversight Board will be responsible for reviewing the efficacy of the Code. Using data from operators, accredited parking associations, conformity assessment bodies and other relevant sources, it will regularly monitor outcomes, identify emerging issues and make non-binding recommendations to government on future improvements to the Code.

Following careful review of the consultation responses, the government will establish an independent Scrutiny and Oversight Board to review the effectiveness of the Code and make evidence-based, non-binding recommendations on future improvements. Members will be appointed through the Public Appointments process and will be selected on the basis of their experience in evidence-led evaluation and scrutiny. It will be demonstrably independent of both the private parking industry and motorist-interest groups. However, it will invite representations from both groups as part of its role.

Guide for motorists: questions 29 and 30

Q29a: Do you agree that government should publish clear and easily understandable non-statutory guidance for motorists alongside the government Code? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Support (Strongly agree/agree)	Oppose (Strongly disagree/ disagree)	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	3,808 (92.5%)	123 (3.0%)	107 (2.6%)	82 (2.0%)
Motorist representative organisation	19 (95.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (5.0%)
Private parking operator	101 (94.4%)	1 (0.9%)	2 (1.9%)	3 (2.8%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	4 (80.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (20.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	66 (76.7%)	3 (3.5%)	2 (2.3%)	15 (17.4%)
Debt recovery agency	7 (87.5%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (12.5%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	4 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	53 (89.8%)	3 (5.1%)	0 (0.0%)	3 (5.1%)
Other	17 (85.0%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (10.0%)	1 (5.0%)
Not answered	8 (44.4%)	1 (5.6%)	0 (0.0%)	9 (50.0%)

Q29b: Please explain your answer (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

All respondent groups supported the proposal for government to introduce a guide for motorists, recognising that it would improve transparency and help reduce disputes. A majority of respondents emphasised the importance of providing a clear, accurate and authoritative source of information to address existing misinformation about the parking enforcement process. Many suggested that the guide should be developed in collaboration with industry and motorist representatives to ensure its accuracy and relevance. Some respondents raised concerns about the tone and content of the guide, noting that any perceived bias could undermine its credibility and effectiveness.

Q30a: Do you agree that parking operators should be required to provide a link to government guidance on all correspondence with motorists from the point of receiving a parking charge? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Support (Strongly agree/agree)	Oppose (Strongly disagree/ disagree)	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	3,858 (93.7%)	89 (2.2%)	88 (2.1%)	85 (2.1%)
Motorist representative organisation	18 (90.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (10.0%)
Private parking operator	90 (84.1%)	11 (10.3%)	3 (2.8%)	3 (2.8%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	3 (60.0%)	1 (20.0%)	1 (20.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	58 (67.4%)	8 (9.3%)	5 (5.8%)	15 (17.4%)
Debt recovery agency	6 (75.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (25.0%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	3 (75.0%)	1 (25.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	52 (88.1%)	3 (5.1%)	1 (1.7%)	3 (5.1%)
Other	17 (85.0%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (10.0%)	1 (5.0%)
Not answered	9 (50.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	9 (50.0%)

Q30b: Please explain your answer (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

All respondent groups expressed support for this requirement, largely on the basis it would aid transparency and support motorist understanding. For the most part it was seen as a low-cost, high-impact measure to increase awareness of motorists’ rights, although some operators did raise concerns over administrative costs. It was also suggested that the link needed to be placed near key instructions, be mobile-friendly and be screen reader compatible. Some respondents cautioned that correspondence is already lengthy and heavily regulated, suggesting that links should be incorporated clearly but concisely to avoid clutter or confusion.

Government response on the guide for motorists

The government considers that motorists currently face a fragmented and often complex information landscape when parking on private land. Important information about rights, responsibilities and appeals is not always presented in a clear, accessible or motorist-focused way. Taking into account the consultation responses and stakeholder feedback, updating content on GOV.UK would provide a trusted and authoritative source of information, helping motorists understand parking requirements, challenge parking charges where appropriate, and make effective use of the protections available under the Code. In line with consultation responses, the government will mandate parking operators to include a link to the government guidance on all correspondence with motorists from the point of receiving a parking charge. Throughout the Impact Assessment and government response, references to government guidance have been replaced with a guide for motorists in response from feedback from stakeholders.

Appeals perception and independence: questions 31 and 32

Q31: Please describe the factors which are driving the negative perception held by motorists for the current second-stage appeals services. (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

Many motorist and motorist representative organisations raised concerns that, in their opinion, the current second-stage appeals are biased in favour of operators and are not independent from industry, highlighting that the current services are funded by the industry. These respondents argued that outcomes often appear to favour operators regardless of the evidence presented, with limited transparency around how decisions are reached. This appears to have reinforced a perception that appeals are ineffective and contributed to a strong consensus that any reform should prioritise greater independence, transparency, consistency and accountability.

Many operators, trade associations, landowners and debt recovery agents also recognised that many motorists view second-stage appeals negatively. However, they generally attributed this perception to misunderstandings about the independence, transparency and fairness of the process, citing misinformation, limited awareness of how appeals operate, and frustration with enforcement outcomes as the main drivers of negative views.

Q32: Please describe what attributes an appeals service would need to be independent. (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

The majority of motorists and motorist representative organisations argued that no appeals provider should have financial or operational links to parking operators and called for transparent governance structures to prevent real or perceived bias. This was mirrored in responses from the majority of landowners, who also emphasised that a truly independent appeals service must be free from commercial influence, political pressure, or industry bias. However, respondents caveated this by noting the need to retain practical knowledge of parking operations.

Both trade associations and many debt recovery agents and landowners all emphasised that independence requires structural separation from operators and impartial adjudication.

The majority of operators argued that the current two-stage system (operator plus independent appeals body) is already sufficient, arguing that any additional stages would undermine finality and reduce deterrence. Emphasis was placed on transparency, with respondents arguing that published statistics and oversight by an external body are essential.

Government response to the second stage appeals process

Whilst the Code is intended to support quicker resolution of parking charges by providing clearer standards and improving first-stage decision-making, second-stage appeals remain an important safeguard for motorists. They provide motorists with access to independent scrutiny where they are dissatisfied with an operator’s decision, while creating a strong incentive for operators to handle first-stage appeals fairly and consistently.

The government notes concerns raised through consultation that the current appeals process is perceived by some respondents to lack independence, with some motorists citing bias, inconsistent treatment and evidential thresholds that favour operators. As these issues can undermine trust and discourage engagement, the government intends to impose stricter standards on existing appeals services as follows:

• decision makers must have no affiliation with the private parking industry
• decision makers must declare any conflicts of interest
• the parking industry (including parking operators and accredited parking associations) must have no direct influence over the decision maker’s appeal decision
• the accredited parking association should not own or manage the day-to-day running of the appeals service
• parking associations must publish an annual report which shows how many appeals have been received, how many were decided in favour of the motorist and for what reason(s)
• decision makers must uphold an appeal where the Appeals Charter has not been correctly applied
• the Scrutiny and Oversight Board, once set up, will be asked to consider whether these changes are delivering the desired impact. Where, for example, perception and trust in the second stage appeals system remains low

The government will ask the Scrutiny and Oversight Board to determine whether the strengthened industry-based appeals model is sufficient, or whether the government should move in the future to a government-appointed second-stage appeals service.

Additional comments: question 33

Q33: Do you have any other comments in relation to the proposals and matters set out in this consultation or in the Options Assessment published alongside the consultation? (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

The majority of motorists and motorist representative organisations emphasised the need for fairness, advocating for consumer rights representation on the Scrutiny and Oversight Board to ensure the public voice is heard. This was accompanied by calls for greater flexibility in the appeals process to account for exceptional circumstances, with many arguing that rigid timeframes disadvantage vulnerable motorists.

Both operators and trade associations asserted that the current system already ensures fairness and accessibility; however, there was recognition of the need for greater flexibility around appeal deadlines to accommodate genuine exceptional circumstances. Trade associations emphasised the importance of avoiding the unintended consequences of over-regulation, highlighting the need for ongoing collaboration between government and industry in refining the Code.

Some landowners raised broader operational concerns, including DVLA keeper data gaps, car dealer loopholes, and online reputational issues, and many called for the Code to strike a balance between fairness, effective deterrence, and landowner rights. This need for balance and proportionality was echoed by many relevant businesses, which welcomed an enforceable Code with independent oversight while emphasising the need for plain English correspondence and tighter controls on poor operator practices to rebuild public confidence.

Government response on additional comments

The government’s Code and enforcement framework will be clear, transparent and proportionate. It seeks to provide a fair and accessible system for motorists and a workable regulatory environment for operators and landowners. The government will ensure that oversight arrangements are robust and that the Scrutiny and Oversight Board has access to data to provide the government with evidence-based recommendations. The framework will balance the interests of motorists, operators and landowners, provide appropriate flexibility where exceptional circumstances arise, and ensure that a range of perspectives inform the ongoing scrutiny and review of the Code.

Minor clarifications / corrections to the Withdrawn Code: question 34

Q34a: Do you agree with the minor amendments, outlined in Annex A, that we intend to make to the Code? (Multiple choice)

Summary of consultation responses

Stakeholder group	Support (Strongly agree/agree)	Oppose (Strongly disagree/ disagree)	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	1,612 (39.1%)	189 (4.6%)	1878 (45.6%)	440 (10.7%)
Motorist representative organisation	10 (50.0%)	3 (15.0%)	3 (15.0%)	4 (20.0%)
Private parking operator	48 (44.9%)	43 (40.2%)	10 (9.3%)	6 (5.6%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	3 (60.0%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (40.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	1 (50.0%)	1 (50.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	34 (39.5%)	5 (5.8%)	24 (27.9%)	23 (26.7%)
Debt recovery agency	3 (37.5%)	3 (37.5%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (25.0%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	0 (0.0%)	4 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	24 (40.7%)	8 (13.6%)	16 (27.1%)	11 (18.6%)
Other	5 (25.0%)	1 (5.0%)	8 (40.0%)	6 (30.0%)
Not answered	2 (11.2%)	1 (5.6%)	6 (33.3%)	9 (50.0%)

Q34b: If no, please outline your reasoning. (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

Many respondents used this question as an opportunity to discuss other elements of the consultation.

Many motorists and motorist representative organisations expressed concerns about data privacy and the potential misuse of DVLA data, reflecting broader distrust of both operators and the government’s handling of personal information. This was accompanied by strong support for fairness mechanisms, with respondents suggesting that motorists often allegedly make payments under duress or confusion and that payment should not be treated as an admission of liability.

Among operators who opposed the changes, concerns focused primarily on the proposal to replace the term “controlled land” with “relevant land”. These operators argued that this could exclude certain land, particularly airports, from the scope of the Code, creating confusion and inconsistency. Concerns were also raised about the proposed amendment to the definition of a parking operator in Clause 2 of the Code, with respondents arguing that debt recovery agents should not be included as they are distinct from private parking operators.

Relevant businesses, landowners and debt recovery agents expressed concern that even minor changes could have unintended consequences and argued that amendments should not undermine the objectives of the Code.

Government response on minor clarifications / corrections to the Withdrawn Code

The most significant change to the consulted amendments set out in Annex A was replacing the term “relevant land” with “controlled land”. The government is aware of objections that this change would narrow the Code’s application. However, the Act provides that the Code applies only to “private parking facilities”, defined as facilities for the parking of vehicles on “relevant land”. Accordingly, if a private parking facility is not on “relevant land”, the Code should not apply, regardless of whether it is managed by a private parking operator. The government has therefore reviewed all references to “controlled land” in the Withdrawn Code and is satisfied that replacing them with “relevant land” is appropriate and consistent with s10(3) of the Act.

As a consequence of the above change, the government also reviewed the provisions on “no stopping zones” and no-stopping restrictions and our assessment is that this does not fall within the scope of the Code. The Act and PoFA provide powers in relation to parking, rather than stopping. References relating to no stopping controls have accordingly been removed from the Code. Annex B to the Code has also been updated to replace the word stopping in Annex B b)2) to parking to reflect the scope of the legislation.

The following definitions have also been updated within the Code:

• the Authorised body definition now reflects the latest advice from UKAS which means accredited parking associations must be separate legal entities from conformity assessment bodies, therefore the text in the Withdrawn Code stating that accredited trade associations may act as conformity assessment bodies for the purposes of auditing compliance with the Code has been removed
• the Parked/parking definition has been updated for clarity by adding that the exclusion when dropping off and picking up passengers does not include drop-off zones
• the Parking operator definition has been updated in line with consultation responses to reflect that, where appropriate, it should include third parties acting on behalf of operators
• the definition for the ‘appeals service’ has been removed and replaced with a definition for second-stage appeal services

Other changes, in line with the consultation responses, include:

• Clause 8.1.2 has been updated so it is clear that operators who are not issuing a parking charge under POFA do not need to mention it
• Clause 11, the Complaints Handling clause, has been updated to reflect that some small operators may not have a website
• Clause 13.2.1 deletes the reference to accredited parking associations needing to approve parking attendant identification
• Clause 15 has been re-named to self-ticketers as there are no self-reporting clauses. It also replaces the requirement in the Withdrawn Code for conformity assessment bodies to certify self-ticketers as this will now be done by accredited parking associations
• Clause 19, the Appeals Charter, makes it clear how each of the circumstances should be handled. It also adds a clarification that where one or more payment machines are out of order it must be clear whether inability to pay means the driver is not permitted to park and is required to leave within the appropriate consideration period

The government considers that it is sufficiently clear to retain Clause 3.1.2b from the Withdrawn Code which states the entrance sign must display whether payment is required, or whether free parking is only available for a limited period.

Taking in account the responses to the consultation, the government is also satisfied that other changes following analysis of the consultation responses to question 34 were minor and would not result in any substantive change or unintended consequences. For instance, in the Code, outdated dates, legislative references and hyperlinks have been updated to reflect the current position. In addition, minor spelling and grammatical errors have also been corrected.

Public Sector Equality Duty: question 35

Q35a: Do you have any views or comments on any implications that the proposals in this consultation may have on groups defined by reference to protected characteristics? (Multiple choice)

Stakeholder group	Yes	No	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	733 (26.2%)	1676 (59.8%)	0 (0.0%)	392 (14.0%)
Motorist representative organisation	9 (52.9%)	4 (23.5%)	0 (0.0%)	4 (23.5%)
Private parking operator	47 (54.0%)	32 (36.8%)	0 (0.0%)	8 (9.2%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	0 (0.0%)	4 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	2 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	16 (24.6%)	30 (46.2%)	0 (0.0%)	19 (29.2%)
Debt recovery agency	4 (57.1%)	1 (14.3%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (28.6%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	4 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	13 (27.1%)	22 (45.8%)	0 (0.0%)	13 (27.1%)
Other	4 (28.6%)	4 (28.6%)	0 (0.0%)	6 (42.9%)
Not answered	4 (25.0%)	3 (18.8%)	0 (0.0%)	9 (56.2%)

Q35b: If Yes, please explain who would be impacted and how, as well as how the impact could be mitigated (if at all). (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

Motorists indicated that they believed there would be no impact on groups defined by protected characteristics, instead using the opportunity to voice criticism about the practices of some industry members, which some described as unfair to motorists.

Motorist representative organisations emphasised that the Code must work for everyone and called for an equality impact assessment to underpin all aspects of the revised Code. These groups argued that operator compliance with the Equality Act 2010 should be monitored as part of Code enforcement and suggested accessibility audits for signage and payment interfaces.

The trade associations did not identify any specific impacts on groups with protected characteristics, stressing that the Code applies equally to all motorists. Both trade associations argued that industry standards already require reasonable adjustments for disabled motorists and that operators are trained to recognise any and apply equality obligations during the enforcement process. Similarly, operators highlighted the importance of compliance with the Equality Act 2010 and recommended accessible signage with appropriate font sizes, contrast and lighting.

Debt recovery agents, landowners and relevant businesses all highlighted the importance of clear communications, particularly regarding the use of Blue Badges and any additional mitigations available for disabled motorists. This need for clarity was accompanied by calls for training and policies to demonstrate compliance with equality duties and to improve the accessibility of parking facilities for users.

Government response to the Public Sector Equality Duty questions

The government anticipates that the introduction of the new Code will have a positive impact on all motorists, including those with protected characteristics. The Code is designed to drive continuous improvement across the private parking industry, supported by clear requirements on accessibility, communication and fairness. The government will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the framework and make amendments where necessary to ensure it remains responsive to emerging issues and reflects real-world experience.

Environmental principles policy statement: question 36

Q36a: Do you have any views or comments on any potential environmental implications resulting from the proposals outlined in this consultation? (Multiple choice)

Stakeholder group	Yes	No	Don’t know	Not answered
Motorist	332 (11.1%)	2313 (77.4%)	0 (0.0%)	344 (11.5%)
Motorist representative organisation	1 (6.2%)	10 (62.5%)	0 (0.0%)	5 (31.2%)
Private parking operator	58 (61.1%)	30 (31.6%)	0 (0.0%)	7 (7.4%)
Private parking industry representative organisation	1 (25.0%)	3 (75.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Accredited Trade Association	1 (50.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (50.0%)
Owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided	20 (28.6%)	30 (42.9%)	0 (0.0%)	20 (28.6%)
Debt recovery agency	3 (42.9%)	2 (28.6%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (28.6%)
Law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges	2 (50.0%)	2 (50.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Business with an interest in how private parking is managed	9 (18.0%)	30 (60.0%)	0 (0.0%)	11 (22.0%)
Other	3 (20.0%)	7 (46.7%)	0 (0.0%)	5 (33.3%)
Not answered	2 (12.5%)	3 (18.8%)	0 (0.0%)	11 (68.8%)

Q36b: Please explain your answer. (Free text)

Summary of consultation responses

Most respondents felt there would be minimal to no environmental impact, with motorists in particular suggesting that this question was not relevant to the Code. As a result, many motorist responses were not directly related to environmental matters and instead focused on broader criticisms of the private parking industry outlined elsewhere in this Government Response. Where environmental impacts were identified, respondents considered these most likely to arise from material waste, such as changes to signage and the issuing of correspondence by post. Respondents therefore felt that environmental considerations should focus on reducing unnecessary mail, travel and material waste. Some also suggested that addressing poor practice in the industry could improve public acceptance of private parking management, facilitating wider environmental improvements such as the installation of solar canopies in car parks.

Government response to the Environmental principles policy statement questions

The government recognises the importance of reducing unnecessary waste, particularly from signage and postal correspondence. However, it considers the environmental impact of the Code’s requirements to be limited and proportionate to the need to improve standards across the private parking industry and better protect motorists.

Next steps

Alongside the publication of the Government Response, the Code has been laid before Parliament where it will sit for a 40-day period. The Code will be issued on 30 November 2026 providing there are no objections from parliamentarians. The Code will come into force 21 calendar days from the point of issue, replacing the Single Sector Code.

During the 40-day period in which the Code is laid before Parliament, officials will engage with the parking trade associations and other stakeholders to discuss the government’s expectations regarding the Code’s enforcement. 

 The government recognises that new standards contained in the Code will require time for industry to consider and to fully implement the changes it introduces. Under section 5(2) of the Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to any failure to comply with the Parking Code when deciding: (a) whether to disclose particulars contained in the register under regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/2742); and (b) whether a person should be, or continue to be, an accredited parking association.

The government intends that a degree of flexibility should be afforded to industry during the initial implementation period to give the industry appropriate time to adapt to the new standards. The Secretary of State intends to take this into account when exercising her discretion under section 5(2) and officials will work with the trade associations to clarify how breaches of the Code should be addressed, providing certainty for both industry and motorists. However, the government expects standards that are unchanged from the Single Sector Code to be enforced without this degree of flexibility. 

While UKAS has recognised the Certification Scheme, a further period is necessary for it to evaluate conformity assessment bodies once organisations come forward to fulfil that role. The process is expected to take until around April 2027. In the meantime, the trade associations will continue to apply their existing sanctions processes, including the allocation of sanction points, with the ultimate sanction being the loss of access to DVLA data, under section 5(2) of the Act.