Open consultation

Private parking code of practice

Published 11 July 2025

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Scope of this consultation

Topic of this consultation 

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 government code of practice 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. This consultation is pursuant to section 2 of the Act and seeks views on proposed measures aimed at raising standards in the private parking industry before preparing a new government Code of Practice (the Code).   

Scope of the consultation 

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is setting out its proposals and seeking views for raising standards across the private parking industry before preparing the Code, and an accompanying compliance framework for private parking operators.  

This is a public consultation and is open to everyone to respond to. Section 2 of the Act requires the Secretary of State to consult persons who represent the interests of those who provide, operate or manage private car parking facilities and those who use or may use them, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.  Views are especially invited from carpark users, those who represent the interests of motorists, the parking industry, landowners, and businesses involved in debt recovery to help inform decision making. However, views are welcome from anyone else who has an interest in private parking. 

Geographical Scope 

The proposals in this consultation relate to England, Scotland and Wales.  

Option Assessment and Impact Assessment 

In preparing for this consultation, MHCLG has followed the Better Regulation Framework and Green Book principles and has produced an options assessment which was submitted to the Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC). As part of this government’s commitment to transparency, the options assessment has been published alongside this consultation. A small amount of information in the options assessment has been redacted due to commercial sensitivity. 

MHCLG has feedback from the RPC, received on 5 June, that the options assessment is Fit for Purpose. This means that MHCLG has provided sufficient evidence to justify consultation on options for raising standards and to progress to seek collective agreement, consult, and to develop a Regulatory Impact Assessment. The RPC feedback provided a small number of areas for further consideration in the final impact assessment, and MHCLG will include these at that stage. The final impact assessment will be published on GOV.UK alongside the Code when it is laid before Parliament.  

Legislation  

Any reference to legislation, guidance or other documents external to the Act and the Code in this consultation, is to assist the reader with understanding the Code and the consultation but should not be taken to be an exhaustive list of legislation, guidance or other documentation relevant to the Code. 

Body/bodies responsible for the consultation 

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. 

Duration 

This consultation will last for 8 weeks from 11 July 2025 until 5 September 2025.  

Enquiries 

For any enquiries about the consultation please contact: parking@communities.gov.uk  

How to respond 

Responses to this survey should be provided using Citizen Space, an online platform designed for government consultation and engagement.

Submit your online survey response via Citizen Space.

If there are reasons you are unable to use the Citizen Space platform, you may respond by email or by post.

To respond by email, complete the attached PDF question template and email it to parking@communities.gov.uk.

To reply by post, complete the attached PDF question template and send it to:

Private Parking 2025 Consultation,
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government,
2 Marsham Street,
London
SW1P 4DF

If you choose not to use the Citizen Space platform or the attached PDF questionnaire and respond via email, please clearly state which questions your responses relate to, otherwise it may not be possible to include them in the analysis when we consider and/or analyse the consultation responses.  

When you reply, please confirm whether you are replying as an individual, a representative group indicating how many people you represent, or if you are submitting an official response on behalf of an organisation, again indicating the size of the organisation, and include: 

• your name 

• your email 

• your regional location 

• your position within the organisation (if applicable) 

• the name of your organisation (if applicable) 

• the size of your organisation, for example, a Small to Medium Enterprise (SME) or larger business (if applicable) 

• what your organisation is, for example a motorist representative organisation, private parking operator, business with an interest in how private parking is managed, etc.  

• a summary of the people and organisations your group represents (if applicable) 

• who else you have consulted in reaching the conclusions in your response (if applicable). 

When responding to the consultation, please do not include personal data such as your name and address within your responses to questions. Information you provide in response to this consultation may be disclosed in accordance with United Kingdom legislation (including the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004). Therefore, please ensure that your response does not include any material that you are not content for us to disclose. For further information on our Data Protection policy please see section 12. 

Thank you for taking time to submit a response. Please complete the free text boxes to questions as fully as possible where relevant, as your views will help to inform decision making.

Glossary of terms

Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR): Technology that uses specialist cameras, software and image processing to capture vehicle registration mark (VRM) images.

Conformity Assessment Body: A body accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) to audit parking operators’ compliance with the government code.

Keeper: The person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked. In the case of a registered vehicle under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, this is presumed to be the registered keeper unless the contrary is proved.

Landowner: The owner(s) of relevant land or company or person legally entitled to act on their behalf.

Parking charge: This is used in the same way as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 4), which essentially covers any fee or charge for breaking the terms and conditions of a contract for private parking, or damages in trespass for parking where it is not permitted.

Parking tariff: a) the schedule of parking fees and time periods to which they relate, applied where parking on controlled land is permitted subject to the payment of defined sums, or specific sum payable for parking where applicable; or b) a sum payable as a fee applicable for parking on controlled land.

Private parking: Refers to the operation and management of parking on the four categories of relevant land (referred to in the Withdrawn Code as controlled land) – private use car parks, prohibited parking areas, public use car parks, and short stay areas

Private use car parks: Land or premises where the parking of vehicles is not openly available to the public, but is permitted for a defined set of vehicles, for example those driven by the employees and/or customers of a business, residents of a development, attendees of an event, or permitted visitors, for example, to a doctor’s surgery.

Prohibited parking areas: Relevant land (referred to in the Withdrawn Code as controlled land) where parking restrictions apply, for example where public parking is not permitted, or on roads within airport perimeters where neither parking nor stopping is permitted

Public use car parks: Land or premises where the parking of vehicles by members of the public is allowed, subject to such terms and conditions as may apply.

Scrutiny and Oversight Board: Proposed new independent board to make recommendations to government for further raising standards in the parking industry based on data which will be collected from trade associations, Conformity Assessment Bodies and motorists.

Short-stay areas: Land or premises where the stopping of a vehicle is permissible for a limited period, for example at airport and railway station drop-off and pick-up zones.

Soft trace: Action undertaken by the parking operator and/or its appointed debt recovery agent to establish the correct correspondence details of the driver, keeper or hire company before commencing enforcement action.

Ministerial foreword

For the 35 million people in Britain who rely on cars as their main means of transport, the ability to park with peace of mind isn’t just about convenience. It is vital for their quality of life.  

It means not having to think twice about shopping locally or popping out to see friends and family, knowing that charges are fair and the rules are clear. Parking without fear of an unjustified parking charge is good for boosting local economies and our social fabric.  

The UK private parking industry plays an important role in supporting our local economies and high streets.  But we continue to hear reports of poor behaviour by parking operators that make it difficult for motorists to comply with the terms and conditions of parking and leave them open to parking charges and escalating costs. These operators tarnish the reputation of those in the industry who strive to provide quality parking facilities and services. That’s bad for motorists, industry and the economy. And it’s bad for growth. There is considerable evidence that the public want transparency, and they want to see parking operators who engage in poor practices held to account.  

Parliament, as long ago as 2019, decided that there should be a government code of practice for private parking, and there is no justification for further delay in complying with Parliament’s direction.  

This government wants to make swift progress to support and protect motorists, without penalising those private operators who run their car parks well.  The parking industry’s two trade associations recently published a single industry code of practice which replaced the two different codes they had. But more needs to be done to raise standards and to hold parking operators to account.  

This consultation sets out our proposals for achieving this through both a new  government code of practice aimed at further driving up standards and a new robust compliance framework for parking operators that will ensure that motorists have trust in the system. Whilst we consider these proposals the best way to raise standards, we remain open minded about what course of action to take.  

We are keen to hear your views so that we can get this right for motorists without penalising operators who are providing quality services.

Alex Norris MP, Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Local Growth

About you

The government requests that respondents include some background details to accompany their response. This will help us to better understand the context of the views shared during the consultation.  

For details on how we use and process your personal data, please refer to section 12 (Privacy Notice – Personal Data).  

These questions are optional and if you prefer to respond anonymously, please do not complete this section.

About you questions 

Question 1: What is your full name or the name of the organisation on behalf of which you are responding? [Free text box] 

Question 2: I am responding primarily as a: [tick just one box] 

• private parking operator 

• private parking Industry representative organisation 

• accredited Trade Association 

• owner of land or premises on which private parking is provided  

• debt recovery agency 

• law firm involved in the enforcement of private parking charges  

• business with an interest in how private parking is managed  

• motorist 

• motorist representative organisation 

• other (please specify) [Free text box] 

For parking operator respondents 

Question 3:   Which accredited trade association do you belong to? 

• British Parking Association 

• International Parking Community 

• not applicable 

Question 4: How many parking sites do you or your company manage? 

• 0-9 

• 10-49 

• 50-149 

• 150-249 

• 250+ 

• not applicable 

Question 5: Where in England, Scotland or Wales is/are your site/s located? [Tick all boxes that apply] 

• London 

• South East (England) 

• South West (England) 

• East of England 

• East Midlands (England) 

• West Midlands (England) 

• North West (England) 

• North East (England) 

• Yorkshire and the Humber (England) 

• Scotland 

• Wales 

• not applicable

Question 6: Approximately what percentage of your carpark(s) allow:

	1-25%	26-50%	51-75%	76-100%
Parking by members of the public for free	[Tick Box]	[Tick Box]	[Tick Box]	[Tick Box]
Parking by members of the public on payment of a fee	[Tick Box]	[Tick Box]	[Tick Box]	[Tick Box]
Parking by members of the public for free for an initial period and on payment of a fee for longer periods	[Tick Box]	[Tick Box]	[Tick Box]	[Tick Box]
Parking only by a limited group e.g. employees and/or customers of a business, those attending an event	[Tick Box]	[Tick Box]	[Tick Box]	[Tick Box]
Residential or permit only (separate to the above bullet)	[Tick Box]	[Tick Box]	[Tick Box]	[Tick Box]

Overview

History

A Private Members’ Bill introduced by Sir Greg Knight in response to concerns about private parking operators’ behaviour became the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. In February 2022, the previous government issued a code of practice in accordance with this legislation, but it was withdrawn in June 2022 due to legal challenge. Matters raised included concerns that the Code incorporated lower caps than the industry caps on parking charges at the time and banned debt recovery fees. Challengers argued these points were not properly consulted on and that an impact assessment should have been carried out. At this point, the previous government withdrew that version of the Code (referred to in this consultation as the Withdrawn Code) with a view to developing a fuller picture of the impact of the policy. This led to a Call for Evidence in 2023 asking for information about a variety of parking charge and debt recovery fee levels. The information gathered through this Call for Evidence has been helpful in developing the proposals within this consultation.

In October 2024, the 2 accredited trade associations (trade associations) for the industry, the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC), adopted many standards from the Withdrawn Code and published a single industry code of practice (Industry Code). The stated objective of this was to ensure key elements of the Withdrawn Code were implemented as soon as possible. However, the Industry Code did not adopt all the standards from the Withdrawn Code. It does not include a transparent and independent compliance framework, which is vital to restore trust in the industry and ensure poor behaviour is addressed. It also restricts the circumstances under which motorists can appeal parking charges and have the charges cancelled or refunded.

How the current system works

Parking on private land and premises is largely managed under contract law. When a driver enters and decides to park on a site owned or managed by a parking operator, they are held to have accepted and entered into a contract with that operator. If the parking operator considers that the terms and conditions of that contract have been breached, they may issue a parking charge notice. Parking charge notices are not to be confused with tariffs - the amount paid by motorists for parking in car parks where payment is required. Parking charge notices are enforceable through a claim in the County Court in England and Wales or the Sheriff Court in Scotland. Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 apply to private parking in England and Wales and allow unpaid parking-related charges to be recovered from the keeper or the hirer of a vehicle in certain circumstances.

Parking charges are currently issued either at the time of contravention (with a parking charge notice being handed to the driver or placed on the vehicle windscreen) or by sending a parking charge notice to the vehicle’s registered keeper by post (usually when a contravention is detected remotely, e.g. via cameras and/or using ANPR). To send parking charge notices by post or enforce unpaid parking charge notices issued at the time of contravention, parking operators must contact the vehicle’s registered keeper. The law permits this information to be provided by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), subject to appropriate safeguards.

To access that data, operators must demonstrate that they have a reasonable cause to receive it as well as be a member of a DVLA-accredited trade association. To become an accredited trade association, the DVLA requires a trade body to have a code of practice, provide guidance on how it expects its members to operate, as well as setting standards for operators, covering, for example, signage, dealing with complaints, managing appeals against parking charges, setting caps for parking charges and debt recovery fees, and setting expectations for early payment discounts. They are also required to have a mechanism to enforce their code of practice, and they must provide an independent, second stage appeals service.

Increase in parking charges

Since 2012, the number of parking charges issued by private parking operators has increased significantly. This is evidenced by the census data collated by the trade associations and data from the DVLA on registered vehicle keeper requests made by private parking operators. The DVLA vehicle keeper data requests increased from 1.9 million in 2012 to 8.4 million in 2019, and 12.8 million in 2024. This represents around a 673% increase in requests made over the space of those years, and a 34% increase since 2019.

A number of factors are likely to have been responsible for this increase:

• It is much easier to issue parking charges since the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) abolished clamping and established the new vehicle keeper liability regulatory regime, whereby, subject to certain conditions, the keeper or hirer of a vehicle may be made liable for any unpaid parking charge that has arisen in relation to the vehicle due to a breach of contract or trespass.

• There has been significant growth in the use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). ANPR records the time the vehicle enters the car park and the time it leaves; this is then compared against the parking tariff purchased by the motorist where relevant. ANPR allows firms to cut costs and automate work. Identifying non-compliant motorists and issuing parking charges has become easier and, in many cases, cheaper. The most recent figures from the BPA Census in 2024 show over 90% of parking charges were issued by ANPR. Expansion into new sites has brought more motorists into contact with the enforcement system.

• There has also been a significant increase since 2012 in the number of car parks under private parking management. Evidence submitted by both trade associations estimates there are up to 49,416 car parks under private management in the UK, up from around 10,400 in 2012. We do not have data about the number of parking spaces under private management.

Since the introduction of the Industry Code, the government continues to receive reports about poor parking operator behaviour. These reports mainly comprise correspondence, MPs raising the issues faced by their constituents, representations from motorist groups which include the RAC, RAC Foundation, the AA, IAM RoadSmart, influencers on motorist forums, and a steady stream of media coverage. The scale of this information ranges from individual motorists through to surveys of almost 14,000 drivers conducted by organisations such as the AA.

These reports include examples of motorists receiving parking charges for breaking the terms and conditions in car parks when those rules were not clear, or where the motorist was unable to comply with the terms and conditions through no fault of their own e.g. being unable to pay by mobile because of poor mobile signal in the car park or faulty mobile apps; being unable to pay, or charged for inputting their car registration details incorrectly, because of faulty machines; or being charged for overstaying because the ANPR machines did not correctly record them leaving.

Reports of alleged poor practices by parking operators are deeply concerning. Such reports were also the main reason behind the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, requiring a government code of practice that (among other things) promotes good practice and contains guidance about the operation and management of private parking facilities.

Often the reports highlight activity which is not prohibited by the Industry Code. The Industry Code includes a sanctions section which allows the trade associations to impose various actions where operators are found in breach of the Code by issuing sanction points, suspending sites or operators, and expelling members. The government has little evidence on the extent to which such sanctioning takes place. Motorist representatives claim that the enforcement mechanisms underpinning the Industry Code are too lenient and are not providing sufficient deterrent to prevent poor practices by operators.

The number of parking charges issued is at an all-time high. Whilst the government recognises that this may be explained in part by the fact that private parking provision has grown significantly, by technological advancements which have made it easier to identify non-compliance, and by the change in the regulatory landscape since the introduction of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012), nonetheless it is right to explore the impact that poor operator practices is having on these figures. The existing system of industry self-regulation is not transparent or independent enough to be trusted to consistently hold operators to account.

The government is committed to building a better understanding of the extent to which poor operator practice is driving the increase in the number of parking charges being issued. This data will drive decision making about how to raise standards across the industry.

Overview of government proposals and consultation

The government’s proposals seek to better protect and support motorists whilst balancing the legitimate needs of private parking operators to manage car parks. The proposals centre around the government introducing a Code which seeks to raise standards across the private parking industry and delivers on the Secretary of State’s duty to introduce a code of practice which promotes good practice. The proposals are changes to the Withdrawn Code. The proposals have taken into account the Industry Code as this is what private parking operators are currently expected to adhere to. Consulting on these changes will enable government to understand the impact of such changes before preparing the Code.

The following sections of the consultation will provide more detail about each of the proposals, but in summary the government is seeking views on the following:

Parking Charge Cap

The current industry cap for parking charges is £100 with a 40% discount where the charge is paid within 14 days. The consultation seeks views on the retention of the existing industry cap, whilst building a stronger evidence base through new data collection requirements placed on the industry which will ensure that any changes to the level of the cap are evidence-led.

Debt Recovery Fee Cap

The current industry cap for debt recovery fees is £70. The consultation seeks views on the current cap, whether a debt recovery cap should be in place, and if so, what the level of that cap should be.

Second Stage Appeals Process

There are currently two second stage appeals services, one for each of the two trade associations. There is a perception amongst motorists that the system is set up in favour of parking operators across both appeals services. The consultation seeks to better understand motorists’ ongoing negative perceptions of the current second stage appeals services, to ensure a new solution addresses these concerns.

Additional Mitigation for Appeals Charter

The consultation seeks views on adding a new provision to the Appeals Charter such that appeals are upheld for any incident where the motorist can evidence that they had no choice but to breach the terms and conditions.

Adopting the recent update to the Industry Code regarding the 5 minute rule

The Industry Code was updated in February 2025 to ensure that parking charges are not issued in ANPR controlled car parks where a motorist takes longer than five minutes to pay but can evidence a full payment before leaving and the consultation seeks view on this change.

Clarification on changes to the Industry Code

The consultation also seeks clarification on deviations from the Withdrawn Code which are present in the Industry Code. For instance, the Withdrawn Code requires the cancellation of a parking charge in all mitigating circumstances. However, for some of the mitigating circumstances, the Industry Code states that there is a reduced charge of £20 if paid within 14 days and weaker protections for appeals.

Data

The consultation seeks views on the government’s proposal for enhanced data collection from industry to support better decision making.

Government Guidance

The consultation seeks views on the government publishing non-statutory guidance for motorists and mandating that parking operators provide a link to this guidance in correspondence with motorists.

Additional views

The government invites respondents to provide any additional comments on the proposals and other matters set out in the consultation and in the Options Assessment published alongside the consultation.

Minor changes to the Withdrawn Code

The consultation seeks views on several areas where minor corrections or clarifications are required to the Withdrawn Code.

Alongside the Code, there will be a government compliance framework which will seek to ensure that parking operators comply with the Code. It will be made up of two elements – an independent Scrutiny and Oversight Board, and a United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) approved Certification Scheme to oversee how private parking operators are complying with the Code. The compliance framework would ensure that operators who engage in poor practices are held to account, with the ultimate sanction of losing access to DVLA data under section 5 of the Act. Parking operators require access to DVLA data in order to send parking charges to motorists for non-compliance.

The Code and compliance framework are a necessary package. Effective oversight of compliance will provide a deterrent to operators not to engage in poor practices. It will also provide the public with reassurance that parking operators who fall short of the standards will be held to account and most importantly it will mean action is taken against parking operators who choose to engage in poor practices. A robust compliance framework will help to create a level playing field, providing consequences for operators engaging in poor practice, and improving the perception of the private parking industry and the experience of motorists.

In addition to the Code and compliance framework, the government proposes to develop and publish its own guidance to support motorists.

The code of practice

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

This section will seek your views on the main proposed differences between the Withdrawn Code and the government’s proposals, whilst also taking account of the Industry Code.

Caps on parking charges

The Withdrawn Code introduced different caps on parking charges which varied depending on the nature of the breach of parking terms and conditions, the type of land/premises, and geographical area (£100 to £130 in London, and £50 to £100 outside London). It also increased the discount for paying a parking charge within 14 days of its receipt from 40% to 50%, in line with the regime that applies to local authorities in respect of off-street parking. The legal challenges that led to the Code being withdrawn argued that the economic implications for reducing the caps from the existing industry parking charge cap of £100 had not been fully considered.

The government is consulting on maintaining the existing industry parking charge cap of £100 (a flat cap across all areas). The government assumes that because the private parking industry have set the parking charge cap at £100, imposition of a cap at that level would not undermine the financial viability of parking operators. The government also assumes that parking charges capped at that level act as effective deterrents, because otherwise the trade associations would have set the level differently. However the government has not reached a final view on the appropriate level of any cap and remains open to hearing views on other amounts. Whatever level is set in the proposed Code, the Scrutiny and Oversight Board will provide the government with recommendations on amending the future level of this cap and/or the discount level for early payment, either up or down, once it believes there is strong enough evidence to do so.

The government is also seeking views on the current 40% discount on parking charges for early payment within 14 days of receiving the parking charge (usually due to the contravention being detected remotely (e.g. by ANPR/CCTV).

Question 7(a): Do you agree that the Government should include the current industry cap of £100 in the proposed new Government Code?

[Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree/Don’t know]

Question 7(b): Please explain your answer. [Free text]

Question 7 (c): 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].

Question 7 (d) If the Government were to introduce a lower cap, or different caps in different areas (To e.g. higher in London but lower elsewhere), what would the benefits and costs be? Please provide any relevant evidence. [Free Text].

Question 8(a): Do you think there should be a 40% discount on parking charges for early payment (within 14 days of receiving the parking charge)?

[Strongly Agree/Agree/Strongly Disagree/Disagree/Don’t know]

Question 8(b): Please explain your answer [Free text]

Question 9: 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]

Debt recovery fees

Currently, if a parking charge is not paid or appealed within 28 days, many private parking operators add a further fee for debt collection services. However, it must be brought to motorists’ attention in the terms and conditions on signage that additional fees may apply. The Industry Code states that where a parking charge becomes overdue, a sum of up to £70 may be added and this is known as a debt recovery fee. Ultimately, if a parking charge goes unpaid, parking operators can take a motorist to the County Court to seek a county court judgment (CCJ) in England and Wales or to the Sheriff Court to seek a decree in Scotland.

The government recognises that this is a sensitive area and that widespread concerns have been raised by those who represent motorists’ interests about the fees and practices employed to recover the unpaid charge. This government is committed to ensuring that motorists are not intimidated during the debt recovery stage and that they are not misled, resulting in them taking a decision that they might not otherwise have taken. The government is not opposed in principle to there being a cost to motorists for parking operators and debt recovery agencies chasing unpaid invoices. Nor is the government opposed to parking operators (or other organisations they contract to undertake the work) contacting people to seek payment where parking invoices are unpaid.

The government first consulted on debt recovery fees in 2021 with a proposal to cap them at £70 mirroring the then, and current, industry maximum. Following consultation, the previous Government decided to ban debt recovery fees as part of the Withdrawn Code. The then government recognised that use of debt recovery agencies could provide an additional level of deterrent, but that the consultation responses did not provide sufficient evidence to determine whether additional fees were required as part of that deterrent, or if their use outweighed the costs to motorists from ill-informed or aggressive debt collecting practices. This decision was challenged by some parking operators and debt recovery agencies leading to the then Secretary of State voluntarily withdrawing the Code for further review (alongside the case for an appropriate cap on parking charges).

As part of this review, the previous government ran a Call for Evidence in 2023 to improve the evidence base for both the industry’s current use of debt recovery fees and an appropriate cap for those fees in the Code. A view was expressed by motorist groups that allowing parking operators to charge debt recovery fees of up to £70 had the effect of extracting money from individuals who opted to engage with the process, thereby covering the costs of those who did not.

Conversely, industry respondents set out the view that the debt recovery process is an opportunity for motorists to engage before parking charges are referred to court – reducing the number of cases that enter the court system. However, the Call for Evidence found that only 13-14% of motorists issued with a debt recovery fee engage with this process and pay it. This suggests that the debt recovery process is not an effective deterrent for keeping motorists out of the courts. This may be due to the industry’s debt recovery fee cap being perceived as being so high that motorists would rather challenge the fee at the court stage than pay it. It may also reflect the proportion of motorists who unknowingly see their parking charge end up in court action. This may happen when a motorist has either not yet responded to the parking charge issued to them, or was unaware of the parking charge being issued due to correspondence being sent to an old address they have yet to change.

The information submitted in response to the Call for Evidence suggests that, within the private parking industry, the level of profit being made by debt recovery agencies is significantly higher than the profits reported by parking operators themselves and is at a level comparable to highly innovative companies and business models in other industries. Based on our understanding of debt recovery agencies, they provide standard services such as payment plan provision, as well as training and development of staff to help support motorists. We therefore do not consider them to be providing significantly innovative services, and as such the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure.

Whilst it is difficult to draw direct comparisons with other industries, research shows that in other industries, the charges associated with debt recovery are considerably lower. For example, within the energy industry charges for non-payment of energy bills vary between providers, amounting to roughly £10-20 for a late payment charge, and £20-£30 for a debt collection/admin fee.^{[footnote 1]}

The evidence the government has gathered to date through consultation and the Call for Evidence shows limited evidence to support the industry’s view that the current £70 debt recovery fee is an effective deterrent. Given the small number of individuals who engage in the process, the evidence strongly suggests that motorists who pay at this stage are cross subsidising the majority of non-compliant motorists.

Industry have also told the MHCLG that a large proportion (44%) of cases proceeding to debt recovery were associated with three or more parking charges. Whilst this could be seen to imply that a high proportion of debt recovery cases involve those with multiple parking charges, the government notes there are credible examples of motorists both before, and within, the debt recovery process who have been accidentally non-compliant due to e.g. faulty parking apps, and who have received numerous debt recovery letters as a result. For example, there were widespread reports in April 2025 of parking firms issuing thousands of demands of up to £170 to motorists who had paid for parking but been unable to input their full registration number because of ‘sticky keys’ on faulty ticket machines.

From the responses received during the Call for Evidence, and further evidence provided since that date, the government does not have enough information to decide whether the current industry cap of £70 can be justified.

The government wants to hear the views of all stakeholders in favour of, or against, the current industry cap of £70 on debt recovery fees. This will assist the government in considering whether to include the £70 industry cap in the Code, or whether another amount is more appropriate, or whether debt recovery fees should be banned.

In order to help respondents to consider this question, the MHCLG has produced some analysis to explain the potential scale of impacts associated with different changes to the debt recovery fee which respondents may find useful as they consider question 10 below.

This analysis shows that a reduction in the debt recovery fee would be a benefit to motorists and a cost to business (and vice versa) but the total impact on society would be zero (as these would cancel out). The monetised impacts in the table below show the indicative analysis of the scale of this economic transfer between businesses and motorists at different potential levels of debt recovery fees over a ten year period. In the table below, a negative number shows a transfer away from motorists towards business. More detail on this analysis can be found in Annex B.

Table 1: Average Annual Economic Transfer (£ million)

Potential Debt Recovery Fee Range	Lower Bound	Upper Bound
£0	–	£62.0
£1 - 19	£61.1	£45.2
£20 - 39	£44.3	£27.5
£40 - 59	£26.6	£9.7
£60 - 79	£8.9	-£8.0
£80 - 99	-£8.9	-£25.7
£100+	-£26.6	–

Table 2: Total Economic Transfer Over 10-Year Appraisal Period (£ million)

Potential Debt Recovery Fee Range	Lower Bound	Upper Bound
£0	–	£620.0
£1 - 19	£611.2	£451.7
£20 - 39	£442.9	£274.6
£40 - 59	£265.7	£97.4
£60 - 79	£88.6	-£79.7
£80 - 99	-£88.6	-£256.9
£100+	-£265.7	–

2025 base year, 2026 present value.

As with parking charge caps, the government proposes that the Scrutiny and Oversight Board will keep the debt recovery fee cap under review and make recommendations to the Secretary of State about what changes, if any, should be made.

Question 10(a): Are you in favour of, or against, the current industry cap on debt recovery fees of £70?

[In favour/against/ not applicable]

Question 10(b) Please explain your answer [free text]

Question 11(a):  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?

[Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree/Don’t know]

Question 11(b): Please explain your answer [Free text]

Question 12(a): 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-£19
• £20-£39
• £40-£59
• £60-£79
• £80-£99
• £100+

Question 12(b): Please explain your answer [Free text]

Question 13(a): 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?

[Yes/No/Don’t Know]

Question 13(b): 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]

Question 14(a): Do you have any data and evidence relating to the impact of debt recovery fees on industry and consumers?

Question 14(b)

If yes, please provide this information.

[Free Text]

Signage

The Withdrawn Code stated that signs displaying terms and conditions should be sufficiently large to be visible from a distance and legible on approach. This will be retained in the proposed Code. However, the government proposes to remove the reference to best practice being that signs should be at least 60cm x 80cm. This is because the government recognises the feedback from industry that not all sites are the same, and that requiring all signs to be the same size takes away the flexibility that individual sites need. The government proposes to include standards for information that entrance signs must contain, including text size, legibility in all light conditions, and location of signs (in line with section 3.1 of the Withdrawn Code). The Certification Scheme will ensure that signage meets those requirements.

Question 15(a): 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?

[Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree/Don’t know]

Question 15(b): Please explain your answer [Free text]

Pay before exit in car parks using ANPR  

The Withdrawn Code included a five-minute consideration period to allow motorists time to read the terms and conditions, as well as find and access a suitable parking space and pay the appropriate parking tariff, before a parking charge could be issued. The Industry Code has recently been updated to prevent parking charges being issued where a motorist takes longer than five minutes to pay but makes a full payment before leaving a carpark which uses ANPR. We understand that this change to the Industry Code was made in response to cases of motorists taking longer than five minutes to make payment through no fault of their own, who went on to receive parking charges despite paying for the full parking period. The government proposes including this revision in its Code.

Question 16(a): Do you agree that a parking charge should not be issued to a motorist who makes a full payment before leaving a carpark which uses ANPR?

[Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree/Don’t know]

Question 16(b): Please explain your answer [Free text]

Consideration and Grace Periods

The Withdrawn Code set out the minimum consideration and grace periods for different types of sites:

• a consideration period is time allowed for a driver to read and understand the terms and conditions applying on a parking facility and identify and access appropriate space to park their vehicle, or depart
• a grace period is a length of time added to a parking period within which time no parking charge applies

These were set out in Annex B Table B.1 of the Withdrawn Code, as seen in the table below. In some instances, the Industry Code included different definitions for different land types and varied lengths for consideration or grace periods.

Table 3: Open to the public

Type of Land	Scale of premises	Minimum Consideration Period (mins)	Grace Period (mins)	Entrance Sign to display
Free for a period of 30 minutes or more	< 500 spaces	5	10	Duration of free parking
Free for a period of 30 minutes or more	> 500 spaces1	10	10	Duration of free parking
Tariff for parking - pay up front for specified period (e.g. pay-and-display)	not applicable	5	10	Parking tariff applies
Tariff for parking - pay on departure (e.g. before returning to vehicle or at exit barrier)	not applicable	5	102	Parking tariff applies
Tariff for parking - booked in advance (e.g. on-line)	not applicable	not applicable	10	Parking tariff applies

Table 4: Restricted

Type of Land	Scale of premises	Minimum Consideration Period (mins)	Grace Period (mins)	Entrance Sign to display
Tied to an event	not applicable	5	10	Specify permitted use
Tied to custom	not applicable	5	10	Specify permitted use
Short-stay	not applicable	not applicable	10	Specify permitted use
Permitted users	not applicable	not applicable	10	Specify permitted use

Question 17(a): Do you believe the details set out in Table B.1 remain appropriate for use in the proposed new Government Code?

[Yes / No/Don’t know]

Question 17(b): If no, please explain your answer.

Reduced charge for certain mitigating circumstances

At ‘Annex F.3’ in the Withdrawn Code there is a list of circumstances which must be recognised as mitigating circumstances when considering appeal decisions. Going forward, the government will refer to Annex F.3 as the Appeals Charter. The Appeals Charter states that if any of these mitigating circumstances apply, this warrants the cancellation of a parking charge, subject to reasonable evidence being provided.

However, the Industry Code departs from the Withdrawn Code by not requiring cancellation of a parking charge in all mitigating circumstances. Instead, for some of the mitigating circumstances the Industry Code states that, if the motorist can provide evidence of those mitigating circumstances, then the £100 parking charge should be reduced to £20 if paid within 14 days, rather than cancelled outright. The Industry Code also states this is only applicable to the first parking charge (First Charge) and where no independent second stage appeal is lodged. The government is seeking to better understand what is meant by the First Charge provision as well as seeking views on whether these same provisions, i.e. only a reduction in charge not a cancellation, should apply to some of the mitigating circumstances in the Code.

The relevant mitigating circumstances listed in the Industry Code are (in summary):

• where the motorist has paid but made a keying in error
• where the driver or a passenger suffers the onset of illness, is delayed by an overrunning medical appointment or as a result of delay arising from childcare arrangements
• where the vehicle has broken down
• failing to display a parking permit or Blue Badge which the driver holds and which would have been valid for the parking
• where one or more payment machines were out of operation, no alternative payment options were available (e.g. by phone) and the motorist could not reasonably be expected to have accessed other machines that were still in operation
• where the vehicle would have been permitted to park but the motorist failed to enter their vehicle registration into a terminal/device

These are set out in full at Annex F of the Industry Code (the Appeals Charter).

From earlier engagement with industry representatives, the government understands that the explanation for this approach of reducing rather than cancelling the parking charge, is that the operator would not have had enough information to understand the mitigating circumstances at the time the parking charge was issued. In those cases, the parking charge was issued correctly based on the information available at that point in time. The trade associations advise the MHCLG that the estimated average cost to issue a parking charge is around £25. They argue that since operators incur costs when issuing charges in these circumstances, a reduced fee that covers some of an operator’s costs is fair.

The government is also not clear what the ‘first charge’ provision means and how it is being applied in practice through the Industry Code. The government is not persuaded that any reduction should only apply to the first parking charge. For instance, it is perfectly possible for a motorist to be ill and for his or her vehicle to break down in a relatively short period, i.e. for both of these types of contraventions to happen to the same motorist through no fault of their own. In view of this, the government is also not presently persuaded that reducing the charge provides sufficient redress for mitigating circumstances. The government wishes to seek views on this Industry Code provision, including industry’s justification for it.

Question 18(a): Do you think that the Code should include a reduced charge for a parking charge that meets one or more of the mitigating circumstances listed in paragraph 4.26 above or do you think that the parking charge should be cancelled?
[Reduced charge/Cancellation of charge/Not sure]

Question 18(b): Please explain your answer [Free text]

Question 19(a): If there is to be a reduced charge, do you think that it should be the £20 as currently implemented in the Industry Code?
[Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree/Don’t Know]

Question 19(b): Please explain your answer [Free text]

Question 20(a): How is the first charge provision applied in practice? [Free text]

Question 20(b): 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]

Additional mitigation for the Appeals Charter

The government proposes adding a provision to the Appeals Charter for appeals to be upheld for any incident where the motorist can evidence that they had no choice but to breach the terms and conditions. This addition would seek to provide an extra layer of protection for motorists who seek to be compliant but fall short of the terms and conditions through no fault of their own. The government will provide further guidance on this having considered the responses to this consultation.

Question 21(a): 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?

[Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree/Don’t know]

Question 21(b): If you agree, please give examples of situations where you think this protection should apply. [Free text]

Process for appealing parking charges

Both the Withdrawn Code and the Industry Code set out the process for appealing a parking charge. On certain issues the Withdrawn Code provides greater protection to the motorist than the Industry Code.

Both the Withdrawn Code and the Industry Code require the operator to consider appeals received outside the normal 28 day period allowed for lodging an appeal where the appellant provides evidence of exceptional circumstances for the appeal not being lodged within the normal timeframes. The government proposes to require that in such circumstances the 28 day period must restart and any enforcement action (except for court action) must be paused. Parking operators do not have the power to pause court proceedings once they are commenced but they can apply to the court for a stay in such proceedings. Where court proceedings have been issued and/or are on-going the government proposes that the Code will require parking operators to apply for a stay in those proceedings. Pausing of enforcement action or an application to the court for a stay in proceedings is not required under the Industry Code.

Both the Withdrawn Code and the Industry Code preclude the ability to appeal once the parking charge is paid. However, the Withdrawn Code includes two exceptional circumstances where it is still possible to appeal, which are not included in the Industry Code:

• where the parking charge had to be paid in order to release a vehicle e.g. on site to release a barrier
• evidence subsequently identified suggests wrongdoing by the parking operator in respect of the issue of the notice

The Withdrawn Code also states that if a parking charge notice is served but not responded to and/or a notice to keeper is sent and any appeal is rejected, the keeper may still identify the driver if they were not the driver themselves. At this point, the liability of the keeper falls in favour of that of the driver who may still then exercise their right of appeal. This right is not replicated in the Industry Code, which states that:

each parking charge is only permitted one opportunity to appeal to the relevant Appeals service.

The government wishes to seek views on the implications of retaining these further rights afforded to the motorist included in the Withdrawn Code.

Question 22 (a). Do you agree that where an appeal outside of the normal 28 day appeal period is considered (where the appellant provides evidence of exceptional circumstances for the appeal not being lodged within the normal timeframes), 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? 

[Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree/Don’t know}

Question 22(b). Please explain your answer. 

[Free text]

Question 23 (a). 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?

[Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree/Don’t know]

and/or

ii) Evidence subsequently identified suggests wrongdoing by the parking operator in respect of the issue of the notice? 

[Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree/Don’t know]

Question 23(b). Please explain your answer

[Free text]

Question 24(a). 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?

[Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree/Don’t know]

• If a notice to keeper is sent and any 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?

• [Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree/Don’t know]

Question 24(b): Please explain your answer.

[Free text]

Where parking tariff exceeds the parking charge

The Withdrawn Code states that where the parking tariff exceeds the parking charge, the full payment of the tariff may be pursued. We are proposing to amend the Withdrawn Code text to clarify that, in such a scenario, the full payment of the tariff may be pursued in addition to the cost of paying the parking charge.

Clause 8.2.3 of the Industry Code also states  that where the parking tariff exceeds the discounted amount of the parking charge, the full payment of the tariff may be pursued and that an additional £60 may be added to the unpaid tariff. Clause 8.2.3 also states that where a parking charge is issued in accordance with this clause, the preceding clause 8.2.2 (which requires a parking operator to offer the motorist a 40% discount for payment of parking charge within 14 days) is not applicable. The government is seeking, through this consultation, clarification from industry on the reasoning behind this additional provision.

Question 25 (a): Do you agree with the proposal at paragraph 4.35 above 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?

[Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree/Don’t know]

Question 25(b): Please explain your answer

[Free text]

Question 26: For industry – What is the reasoning for the additional provision in the Industry Code that 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]

Data

The Withdrawn Code made no provision for the government to collect data from industry regarding parking charges being issued and wider market trends. The government is of the view that collecting data on how the private parking market is functioning is vital to assessing the efficacy of new standards. Collecting key data at regular intervals will improve the transparency of operator practices, as well as trust from motorists that the Scrutiny and Oversight Board is maintaining robust oversight of parking operator compliance with the Code.

A data collection strategy has now been created by the government with input from industry and motorist representative organisations and will continue to be developed alongside this consultation. The government now proposes that there should be new requirements for the trade associations to share certain data with the government. These requirements will be split into 2 categories.

First, trade associations will be required to collect data metrics from their parking operator members regarding charges issued. Some of the data metrics the government envisages collecting are already included as a requirement for operators to collect in the Industry Code. These include the reason for, status of (including appeals data) and location including outward postcode of a parking charge being issued. The government proposes incorporating these existing data collection requirements into the new Code, but also to go further by mandating more parking charge notice metrics, specifically:

• monetary value of parking charges issued
• method of issuance (i.e. windscreen or postal)
• total parking charges issued and their total value across all sites
• total debt recovery fees issued and paid across all sites

Second, the government proposes to mandate the provision of sector-wide data from trade associations regarding car parks under the management of their operators. We propose that operators will be required to provide this data to their trade association for them to aggregate and send to both the government and Scrutiny and Oversight Board. The proposed metrics are:

• number of sites managed
• number of spaces managed (within agreed bandings)
• type of car park (i.e. tariffed/permit/free with terms and conditions)
• total complaints
• complaints upheld

It is proposed that the trade associations will be required to collect this data from their operators at 6 month intervals under the Code. This data will then be sent to the government twice a year. The government hopes to reach an agreement with industry to provide a voluntary data return on all these metrics shortly before the Code goes live to ensure the government has a benchmark to compare the Code’s impact. The Industry Code requires operators to hold data for 36 months, but does not specify the frequency of reporting this data to their trade association. These increased data collection and reporting standards would therefore impose an additional cost on the trade associations to set out new processes to review returns from their operator members, before sending the aggregated data findings to the government. These costs are difficult to estimate, but are expected to be around £100,000-£150,000.  Following conversations with the trade associations, we understand that the additional costs imposed to deliver this data collection ask will be accounted for through increased membership fees. In addition to these two categories of Code data requirements set out above, a third category of data will be required through the Certification Scheme regarding compliance by operators with the Code’s requirements (see para 3.23). Further data will also be collected from the DVLA regarding vehicle keeper requests, as well as the Ministry of Justice regarding County Court claims relating to parking charges. We will explore collecting equivalent data from Sheriff Courts.

Collection of the data regarding parking charge notices, car parks under management and compliance data form the main part of the data that will allow the Scrutiny and Oversight Board to independently review trends in parking charge issuance after the Code takes effect. Further data will be collected from motorist groups  to support the Board. The Board’s independent review will inform a determination by the Secretary of State on whether the Code needs further amendments in the future to maintain balance between the interests of motorists and responsible operators.

Question 27(a): Do you agree with the proposal that a Government Code of Practice will mandate that the trade associations should collect data (summarised in paragraphs 4.39 and 4.40 above) from their private parking operators members and share it with Government and the Scrutiny and Oversight Board?

[Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree/Don’t know]

Question 27(b): Please explain your answer [Free text]

Compliance framework

As well as raising standards further through the Code, the government proposes the introduction of a transparent and robust framework for ensuring compliance with the Code. The previous government consulted on the framework in 2020 and in the 2021 Consultation Response set out its intention to produce a Certification Scheme and establish a Scrutiny and Oversight Board (the Board). This government intends to deliver this commitment alongside the introduction of the Code. The package of the Certification Scheme and the Board was previously referred to as the enforcement framework. Responding to feedback from motorist and industry representatives, this is now referred to as the compliance framework.

The compliance framework will comprise an independent Scrutiny and Oversight Board and a United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) approved Certification Scheme to oversee the compliance of private parking operators with the Code. The compliance framework will ensure that operators engaging in poor practices are held to account, with the ultimate sanction of losing access to DVLA data should they fail to meet the Code of Practice standards. Without DVLA data access, operators cannot identify the registered keeper of a vehicle and so cannot post them a parking charge notice for non-compliance.

Certification Scheme

The MHCLG is developing the Certification Scheme (Scheme) which will audit the parking industry’s compliance with the Code. The Scheme will ensure only organisations which are accredited as Conformity Assessment Bodies by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) will be able to certify operators against the Scheme. UKAS is the National Accreditation Body for the United Kingdom, appointed by government, to assess and accredit organisations that provide services such as certification, testing, inspection, calibration, validation and verification.

The Conformity Assessment Bodies will be responsible for the administration of the Scheme. Their remit will include handling certification applications, conducting audits, issuing conformity certificates, annual surveillance of operators to ensure continued adherence to the Code, and certification suspension, termination or renewals.

The Scheme will require the Conformity Assessment Bodies to share data with the government (in so far as this is allowed by UK data protection legislation) on operator compliance collected through their ongoing surveillance of operators. Data insights may include certificates issued, non-conformities identified through annual surveillance, sites suspended and certificates withdrawn. Trends relating to operator non-compliance derived from this data will help to develop the evidence base for further policy intervention if required.

The UKAS, in turn, will regularly audit Conformity Assessment Bodies which will provide assurance to government that the new system is robust and Conformity Assessment Body audits are rigorous. As the scheme owner, the government will be responsible for maintaining the contents of the Scheme through regular reviews. These reviews will keep the Scheme up to date with changes to Code requirements, legislation, industry practice in order to allow the Conformity Assessment Bodies to run it more effectively.

Only parking operators certified under the Scheme will be able to have access to the DVLA data, which is needed to identify the vehicle keeper and issue or pursue parking charges. In practice, this means that only parking operators who are compliant with the new Code and have a valid certificate of conformity from the UKAS accredited Conformity Assessment Body will be able to enforce parking charges. In circumstances where a parking operator is found in breach of the Code after it has been certified, they will risk being suspended until the problem is rectified or their certification withdrawn. This would preclude operators from requesting the registered vehicle keeper data from the DVLA.

The Scheme is currently being finalised. Once finalised and UKAS approved, the UKAS will take organisations interested in administering the Scheme through a formal accreditation process, which will take between 6 to 12 months. When UKAS-accredited, those organisations will be able to start certifying private parking operators. The government will work with the trade associations to work out transitional arrangements and provide a suitable transition period to allow the industry to transition from the existing compliance mechanisms into the new system.

Once UKAS approved, the Scheme will be published alongside the Code on GOV.UK to ensure transparency.

The Scrutiny and Oversight Board

The Scrutiny and Oversight Board (the Board) will consider the operation of the Code and report to the Secretary of State at least every two years. These reports will set out the Board’s view on the Code’s effectiveness in delivering its objectives and make non-binding recommendations for amendments to the government. This will give the Secretary of State better information to inform decisions in accordance with the Secretary of State’s responsibility under section 3 of the Act to keep the Code under review. The Board’s recommendations will be non-binding and any changes to the Code will only be made following consultation as required by section 2 of the Act. The Board will consider data and information from industry, Conformity Assessment Bodies, the DVLA, and motorist representative organisations and well as monitoring second stage appeals before making recommendations. The Code will mandate the sharing of industry data regarding parking charges with the government (for review by the Board). Similarly, as set out above, the collection and sharing of conformity assessment data of operators will be mandated by the Scheme. The Board will also be responsible for monitoring the impact of changes to the Code that come into effect and reporting on these.

The previous government set out its intention for the Board to be composed of representatives from the MHCLG, the DVLA, the Devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, and industry. Following further policy development and stakeholder engagement, the government proposes a Board comprising people independent of the industry, motorist groups and government. It is envisaged that these individuals will have strong analytical skills and experience of making recommendations based on review of data insights. This is the preferred approach for two main reasons. First, it will facilitate an independent review of the Code, ensuring that the Board’s recommendations are unbiased. Specifically, the Board’s independence from strongly-held views of interest groups will allow them to have difficult conversations on what recommendations to make to improve the Code in a way that balances the needs of both motorists and parking operators. Second, the entities previously envisaged as forming the Board will be undertaking their own monitoring of the Code in their own capacities and will have the opportunity to share those findings with the Board.

Question 28(a): 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?
[Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree/Don’t know]

Question 28(b): Please explain your answer [Free text]

Guidance

The government wants to support motorists to have easy access to clear information so that they can make informed choices when interacting with the private parking industry. Evidence gathered through user research and desk research in summer 2024 suggests that there is misinformation online, and motorists find it difficult to easily access clear and reliable guidance on what to expect throughout their interactions with the private parking industry.

Motorists tend to seek out this information after receiving a parking charge notice. This misinformation makes it harder for motorists to make informed choices about what to do once they receive a parking charge and can result in motorists paying for parking charges which may have been cancelled if they went to appeal or, at the other extreme, motorists ending up with County Court judgments or Sheriff Court decrees because they failed to engage in the process.

There is also little clarity for motorists on the difference between appeals and complaints to the trade associations which can result in worse outcomes for motorists without them knowing, as they end up complaining to trade associations instead of engaging with the appeals services within the allocated time. Both the industry and professionally organised pro-motorist groups and online forums provide information to motorists; the quality of this information varies.

There is a need for a single source of truth that is transparent and available to all – from the start of an interaction with a parking operator (when a motorist chooses to park in a car park) through to court proceedings. The guidance will set out what to expect throughout the user journey. The proposal to develop government guidance has been previously welcomed by both industry and motorist representative groups.

The government’s proposal is to work with stakeholders, including motorist groups and industry to produce (non-statutory) government guidance which will be available on GOV.UK. The government will also work closely with appropriate stakeholders to ensure those with low literacy (including low digital literacy) have equal access to the information contained within the guidance. The guidance will be written in plain English and provide clear and easy to understand information to inform the motorist of their options throughout the process.

The intention is for the guidance to be published when the government Code comes into effect and updated when policy changes are made. The government is seeking views on whether the government Code should mandate parking operators to include a link to the government guidance on all correspondence with motorists from the point of receiving a parking charge.

Question 29(a): Do you agree that government should publish clear and easily understandable non-statutory guidance for motorists alongside the Government Code?

[Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree/Don’t know]

Question 29(b): Please explain your answer. [Free Text]

Question 30(a): 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?

[Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree/Don’t know]

Question 30(b): Please explain your answer. [Free text]

Appeals

Where a motorist disagrees with a parking operator’s decision to issue a parking charge notice, they can appeal that decision with the parking operator. It is a condition of trade association membership that parking operators must offer the option to appeal a parking charge notice (known as first stage appeals). Operators may uphold or reject the appeal depending on their interpretation of the Code and their own discretion. If an appeal is rejected at first stage appeal, then the motorist must be given the option of a second stage appeal. There are currently two second stage appeals services, one for each trade association.

The British Parking Association’s (BPA) second stage appeals service is Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA). The appeals service has been operated on behalf of the BPA by an external organisation since 2015. The International Parking Community’s (IPC) second stage appeals service is the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). Whilst the IPC administers the IAS, it is keen to point out that all adjudications are undertaken by independent barristers and solicitors who do not work within the private parking sector other than to adjudicate on appeals.

The requirement for a second stage appeals service forms part of the DVLA requirement for accreditation of trade associations. The current requirement is for each accredited trade association to have a second stage appeals service which is independent of private parking operators^{[footnote 2]}. The DVLA ensures that both appeals services meet this standard. However, there remains a perception amongst some motorists that the second stage appeals services are not independent of parking operators because there is involvement from the trade associations who represent their members.

There is also concern amongst motorist representative organisations that the processes are not transparent, and the system is set up in favour of parking operators across both appeals services. This contributes to a less effective second stage appeals service because, for those who are aware that a second stage appeals service exists, there is often a lack of trust in those services which deters motorists from engaging with them, meaning they lose the opportunity to have an appeal upheld and to have the parking charge cancelled. Also, data on second stage appeals service usage becomes less reliable at showing the whole picture as some motorists opt out from using the second stage appeals services altogether, potentially adding to pressure on the courts.

In response to that concern, the concept of a government-appointed appeals service was raised during the passage of the Act, and the power to create one is contained in section 7 of the Act. A government-appointed appeals service would replace the two current second stage appeals services.

The government understands that the case for a single independent second stage appeals service is as follows:

• it is likely to provide motorists with clarity about where to go for second stage appeals
• it is likely to eliminate the perception that different appeals services deliver different outcomes to the detriment of the motorist
• a trusted single second stage independent appeals service will encourage more motorists to engage with it
• a well-functioning second stage appeals service will drive up standards across industry by demonstrating what is acceptable to both private parking operators and motorists
• it will provide an independent backstop, preventing the abuse of first stage appeals

The previous consultation in 2020 and research into the industry’s current appeals arrangement undertaken in 2024 found broad support for a single appeals service, as well as a negative perception of existing appeals arrangements. The government is seeking stakeholder views through this consultation to better understand motorists’ ongoing negative perceptions of the current second stage appeals services, to ensure a new solution addresses these concerns.

Question 31: Please describe the factors which are driving the negative perception held by motorists for the current second stage appeals services?

[Free text]

Question 32: Please describe what attributes an appeals service would need to be independent.

[Free text]

Additional comments

This consultation sets out the government’s proposals to raise standards and to hold parking operators to account. Whilst the government considers these proposals the best way to raise standards, respondents are invited to provide any additional comments here on the proposals and any matters set out in the consultation and in the Options Assessment [ link] published alongside this consultation.

Question 33: 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]

Minor clarifications/corrections to the withdrawn code

There are a number of areas within the previous government’s Withdrawn Code which require minor corrections or clarifications. The government proposes to incorporate these changes into its proposed Code. None of these clarifications result in any substantive changes to the Code. A list of the changes, together with the reasons for the change, can be found in Annex A.

Question 34(a). Do you agree with the minor amendments, outlined in Annex A, that we intend to make to the Code?

[Strongly Agree/Agree/Strongly Disagree/Disagree/Don’t know].  

Question 34(b) If no, please outline your reasoning [Free text].

Public sector equality duty

The government would like to hear about any potential impacts of the proposals in the consultation on persons with a relevant protected characteristic / characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010 compared to persons without protected characteristics, together with any appropriate mitigation measures, which may assist in deciding the final policy approach in due course.

Question 35(a): 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?

[Tick Box – Yes / No / Don’t know]

Question 35(b): If Yes, please explain who would be impacted and how, as well as how the impact could be mitigated (if at all).

[Free text].

Environmental principles policy statement

Section 19(1) of the Environment Act 2021 places a legal duty on Ministers to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when making policy. The government will continue to have due regard to the protection and enhancement of the environment during the policy process.

Question 36 (a): Do you have any views or comments on any potential environmental implications resulting from the proposals outlined in this consultation?

[Tick Box – Yes / No / Don’t know]

Question 36 (b): Please explain why.  

[Free text box]

About this consultation

This consultation document and consultation process have been planned to adhere to the Consultation Principles issued by the Cabinet Office.

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

Information provided in response to this consultation may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and UK data protection legislation. In certain circumstances this may therefore include personal data when required by law.

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

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will at all times process your personal data in accordance with UK data protection legislation and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties. A full privacy notice is included below.

Individual responses will not be acknowledged unless specifically requested.

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

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

Privacy notice - personal data

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

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

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

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is the data controller. The Data Protection Officer can be contacted at   dataprotection@communities.gov.uk or by writing to the following address: Data Protection Officer, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Fry Building, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF.

Why we are collecting your personal data

Your personal data is being collected as an essential part of the consultation process, so that we can contact you regarding your response (if needed) and for statistical purposes. We may also use it to contact you about related matters. We will collect your IP address if you complete a consultation online via Citizen Space. We may use this to ensure that each person only completes a survey once. We will not use this data for any other purpose.

Sensitive types of personal data

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

• Race
• Ethnic origin
• Political opinions
• Religious or philosophical beliefs
• Trade union membership
• Genetics
• Biometrics
• Health (including disability-related information)
• Sex life; or
• Sexual orientation.

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

Our legal basis for processing your personal data

The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 places a requirement upon the Secretary of State to consult  A) persons who appear to represent the interests of those who provide, operate or manage private parking facilities, B) persons who appear to represent the interests of those who use, or may use, private parking facilities, and C) such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.  

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

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

With whom we will be sharing your personal data

MHCLG has appointed a ‘data processor’, acting on behalf of the Ministry and under our instruction, to help analyse the responses to this consultation. We will ensure that the processing of your personal data remains in strict accordance with the requirements of the UK data protection legislation.

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

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

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

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

a. to see what data we have about you

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

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

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

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

Please contact us at the following address if you wish to exercise the rights listed above, except the right to lodge a complaint with the ICO: dataprotection@communities.gov.uk or Knowledge and Information Access Team, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Fry Building, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF.

Your personal data will not be sent overseas.

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

Storage of Data.

We use a third-party system, Citizen Space, to collect consultation responses. In the first instance your personal data will be stored on their secure UK-based server. Your personal data will be transferred to our secure government IT system as soon as possible, and it will be stored there for two years from closure of the consultation before it is deleted. Any responses received by email will be stored on our secure government IT system.

Annex B: Analysis on the impact of different debt recovery fee levels

The consultation is seeking views on the current £70 debt recovery fee (DRF). The analysis in this annex has been produced to help inform respondents to the consultation about the potential scale of impacts associated with a change in the DRF, as set out in the consultation questions.

The DRF is a transfer from motorists to business (private parking operators or debt recovery agencies). A reduction in the DRF would be a benefit to motorists and a cost to business (and vice versa), but the total impact on society would be zero as these would cancel out. The monetised impacts below therefore set out the magnitude of the economic transfer associated with the different scenarios in the consultation question.

The behavioural interactions between factors such as the level of the DRF, motorists’ propensity to pay, and the actions of business during the debt recovery process are complex and uncertain. The analysis presented is therefore unable to capture the full effect of all of these factors and instead provides indicative analysis of the scale of the economic transfer between business and motorists at different potential levels of DRF. The assumptions and caveats to this analysis are discussed below.

Monetised impacts

We have monetised the economic transfer associated with different DRF caps corresponding to the options in the consultation document question, against the current baseline of a £70 DRF. The table below sets out the economic transfer to motorists away from business relative to the current counterfactual. The total economic transfer gives the present value of the economic transfer over a ten-year appraisal period. A negative number indicates a transfer away from motorists to business.

Average annual economic transfer (£ million)

Potential DRF Range	Lower Bound	Upper Bound
£0	–	£62.0
£1 to 19	£61.1	£45.2
£20 to 39	£44.3	£27.5
£40 to 59	£26.6	£9.7
£60 to 79	£8.9	-£8.0
£80 to 99	-£8.9	-£25.7
£100+	-£26.6	–

Total economic transfer over 10 year appraisal period (£ million)

Potential DRF Range	Lower Bound	Upper Bound
£0	–	£620.0
£1 to 19	£611.2	£451.7
£20 to 39	£442.9	£274.6
£40 to 59	£265.7	£97.4
£60 to 79	£88.6	-£79.7
£80 to 99	-£88.6	-£256.9
£100+	-£265.7	–

2025 base year, 2026 present value

Assumptions and caveats

• We use 2022 British Parking Association census data for the proportion of debt recovery cases that were paid. This proportion is held constant and applied to our parking charge estimates modelled using KADOE enquiry data. Therefore, the modelling does not account for how changes in the DRF level may impact the proportion of cases that are paid.
• The analysis is based on revenue from the DRF alone and does not consider the accompanying parking charge revenue that would be recovered to parking operators as a result.
• As mentioned above, changing the DRF level may impact motorist behaviour and change the proportion of cases which are paid. Motorists may be more likely to pay DRFs that are lower than the present £70 value if they consider a reduced fee to be more reasonable and proportionate.
• The proposed regulatory changes discussed in the Options Assessment will provide much needed data and in time will help us to better understand what is driving the high number of parking charges and allow us to take action to support motorists where there are high levels of accidental non-compliance which could be remedied with better awareness. In time, we would expect this proposal to reduce the number of parking charges issued for incidents of accidental non-compliance. This would mean that even if the proportion that require debt recovery processes remains constant, the number of cases may decrease.
• Data from the Call for Evidence indicates that debt recovery agencies have an average profit margin of approximately 63% and that around 13-14% of charges sent to the debt recovery stage are paid, suggesting that those who are paying are effectively subsidising those who do not pay. This level of profit is indicative of high market power. As a point of comparison, the Call for Evidence finds a net profit margin for BPA operators of 18.9% and 14.5% for IPC members. Whilst there may be justification for such high profit levels, for example for highly innovative companies, the lack of market mechanisms around setting the DRF suggest this level of profit should at the very least be a concern.
• If the proportion of those paying does not change, our analysis suggests that debt recovery agencies would ‘break even’ (with costs that are equal to revenue) with a DRF of approximately £26. If DRFs were set below this level, this may impact the ability of debt recovery agencies to continue operating in this space and limit the availability of the debt recovery process as an option for parking operators to recover unpaid parking charges. This could increase the proportion of parking cases ending up in the court system and incurring associated costs.

1. EDF may add a late payment charge of £10 to a current customer following bill to cover costs. E.ON have a residential late payment fee of £15, along with a £25 Debt Collection fee. British Gas outline possible charges, which may include £13 to cover cost of debt collection, £31 to pass details onto a debt collection agency.  Octopus Energy may issue a £15 charge for a first missed payment and a £20 charge for each payment after that. ↩

2. The second stage appeals service for the British Parking Association is Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA). The second stage appeals service for the International Parking Community is the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). ↩