Private Parking Code of Practice: explanatory document – how was it developed and what will it change? – GOV.UK
Introduction
This document accompanies the private parking Code of Practice, which was laid in Parliament on 7 February 2022. It is intended to provide background on how the government produced the Code, with input from a Steering Group of stakeholders and a public consultation from August to October 2020, and the key changes that the Code will bring in. Full details are contained in the Code itself, which is the binding document.
Alongside the Code, the government has also published its response to a further technical consultation on private parking charges, discount rates, debt collection fees and an appeals charter, which ran from July to August 2021. The consultation sought further views on a number of issues within the Code, including proposals to bring private parking charges into closer alignment with Local Authority Penalty Charge Notices.
The Code will apply to private parking companies to improve standards and provide consistency for motorists across Britain. It is part of a wider enforcement framework that includes strengthening the current system of self-regulation by producing a Certification Scheme, independently assessed by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, to which parking trade associations must adhere if their members wish to request access to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) data. It also includes the establishment of a Scrutiny and Oversight Board to monitor the new system and the creation of a single independent appeals service for motorists to turn to if they are unhappy with the handling of an appeal by an operator.
How the Code was developed
In November 2019, the government appointed the British Standards Institution (BSI) to produce the Code as a Publicly Available Standard (PAS), a form of British Standard. The government chose the BSI development process as it allows for the input of expert stakeholders and public comments in the drafting process. This ensured that the government met its commitment to consult with those who manage and use private parking services.
In early 2020, the government and BSI appointed a Steering Group of expert stakeholders and a Technical Author. The Steering Group met on several occasions in summer 2020 to discuss a first draft of the PAS and in August 2020, the government and BSI launched two consultations:
1. The BSI held a consultation on the draft PAS from 27 August to 12 October 2020.
2. The government, separately, held a consultation on the Parking Code Enforcement Framework from 30 August to 12 October 2020.
This consultation also asked for responses on a number of issues of which proved too contentious or commercially sensitive to be appropriate for the BSI Steering Group. These included:
- Whether or not there should be a single government-appointed appeals service for motorists to challenge parking charges;
- The level of the caps on private parking charges, including whether these should more closely mirror the Local Authority system of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs);
- The level of the discount for early payment;
- An appeals charter to protect motorists who make a genuine error or receive a parking charge through no fault of their own; and
- The principles of a levy on the parking industry to fund the costs of the new system.
The BSI consultation received an unprecedented number of comments from the public, around 4,500.
The Parking Code Enforcement Framework consultation received 1,000 applicable responses. The government analysed these and published its response to this consultation in March 2021.
We decided that further consultation was necessary on the draft policy on parking charges and related issues, so published the ‘Private parking charges, discount rates, debt collection fees and appeals charter: further technical consultation’ which ran from 30 July until 27 August 2021.
In winter and spring 2020-21, the BSI held a number of further Steering Group meetings to resolve the comments from the public consultation. All of the comments were analysed and taken account of.
In July 2021, the Steering Group accepted two final meetings to reach a consensus on the draft.
Although most of the Code was agreed by consensus through the Steering Group, there are several issues on which ministers took the final decision due to difficulty reaching agreement on them. In particular:
- How long drivers should be allowed to decide whether or not to park before they are deemed to have parked and the clock on time-limited parking starts ticking (the ‘consideration period’);
- How the Code should treat ‘stopping’ as opposed to ‘parking’ in locations where it would be inappropriate for safety or security reasons for a driver even to pause a vehicle;
- Whether the same 10 minute ‘grace period’ should be allowed where permission to park is time-limited regardless of how short a period of permitted parking is allowed; and
- Whether, aside from premises that are purely camera-monitored, the default should be that a physical notice should always be handed to the driver or affixed to the vehicle in all but the most extreme circumstances, a particular issue for so-called ‘self-ticketing’ where the person observing that the parking of a vehicle might have broken the terms and conditions applying or have amounted to trespass is not directly employed by a parking operator.
On these issues, ministers came to a decision by weighing carefully all the different views put forward by the Steering Group and through the public consultation.
More detail on what the Code is intended to achieve is set out below.
What the Code will achieve
This section provides further detail on the views submitted by stakeholders and the public throughout the BSI process. For issues of particular importance, it explains how the government and BSI took account of those views in producing the final Code of Practice.
Introduction (including implementation period)
In many cases, the Code is an evolution of current industry standards, so we expect that many of its requirements will not represent significant change for parking operators. However, we recognise that operators will need time to align with some of requirements and will therefore put in place an implementation period before the Code comes into effect. Operators will be expected to fully adhere to the new Code by the end of 2023, by which time we expect the new single appeals service to be operational.
We will review the Code of Practice within two years of it coming into force by the end of 2023. We will take into account data from our ongoing monitoring of the Code and developments in the wider industry, for example any changes to local authority penalties.
The government consulted separately on the implementation of the Code as part of the ‘Private parking charges, discount rates, debt collection fees and appeals charter: further technical consultation’ where the response is published.
1. Scope
The Code of Practice applies to England, Scotland, and Wales. It covers public use car parks, private use car parks, short stay areas, and prohibited parking areas. It does not cover on-street parking on public highways, nor does it overrule the provisions and enforcement of byelaws where they apply to parking.
The Code has been designed primarily to manage ‘relevant land’ under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as stipulated in the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. It may also be applied to other private land where parking is managed by private parking operators, including land where byelaws apply.
2. Terms and definitions
This section sets out the terms and definitions used in the Code, which mainly align with the terms and definitions used in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, we have updated some terms based on comments that we received from stakeholders and through the public consultation.
In particular, the Code defines ‘parking’, when a vehicle is stationary, separately to the ‘parking period’, the length of time that a vehicle is stationary after any consideration period has expired. This is significant because many premises where public parking is invited are only monitored automatically using camera systems that record when a vehicle enters and departs the site. The Code, and its provisions for consideration and grace periods, is drafted on the basis that a vehicle is not parked until it has come to a stop.
The Code uses the term notice of parking charge (NoPC) in place of parking charge notice (PCN), to distinguish a notice issued by a private parking company from a notice issued by a local authority. Private and local authority charges each have a different and distinct legal basis and consequence for the parties concerned.
When the driver or the registered keeper of a vehicle receives a notice of parking charge they should be able quickly to see the nature of the enforcement process from the term being used.
3. Signs and surface markings
3.1 Signs
This section tightens the obligations on private parking managers to ensure that the signs at the entrance to and within premises are designed and located so that they are clearly visible and convey all the information drivers need to see.
In our consultation with stakeholders and the public, we heard different views about the ideal size and content of entrance signs, the signs and markings that are required within parking sites, and whether planning permission or advertising consent for signs are needed for parking operators to be able to enforce terms and conditions. We also heard differing views on whether the name of the landowner, as well as that of the parking operator, should be displayed on signs and in the notice of parking charge.
The Code includes tighter standards for signs at the entrance to premises, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted, and for signs on site, to inform drivers of the terms and conditions for parking. These include requirements in relation to the location and size of signs, the size of text, the style of font, and the information that must be included on signs. For example, signs displaying the terms and conditions for parking must be placed throughout the site, be sufficiently large to be visible from a distance with a text size and colour that is readable to the driver. They must include information about the parking operator, the parking tariff and the parking charge that may apply if a driver breaches the terms and conditions. The Code places obligations on parking operators, rather than landowners, and does not therefore require the name of the landowner to be included on signs or in the notice of parking charge (unless landowners themselves are responsible for managing parking on the land).
We envisage that this will mean some costs for operators. Operators already update signs regularly, for example in response to complaints or new legislation. However, the Code will require them to make more substantial updates for signs at existing sites during the transition period that will take place before the new standards come into force. The tighter standards for signs should result in reduced stress and fewer unfair parking charges for drivers.
3.2 Signs and surface markings – adjoining parking premises
Through our consultation we heard concerns that some parking areas that appear to be part of the same car park are actually subject to different parking terms and conditions, leading to drivers inadvertently receiving parking charges. This may be the case, for example, where certain bays are reserved for customers of certain shops. The Code requires parking operators to make clear, through signs and surface markings, where adjoining stretches of land are subject to different parking terms and conditions.
As with signage generally, this is likely to impose a cost to operators. Depending on the commercial arrangements between operators and landowners, some changes (for example, surface markings or fencing) may be borne by the landowner.
3.3 Surface markings – delineated parking bays
Drivers are subject to a parking charge if they are not parked correctly within the markings of a bay, or if they are wrongly parked in a restricted space such as a Blue Badge bay. The Code requires parking operators to ensure that, where required, the markings for parking bays are always clear and visible. Depending on which party is responsible for the maintenance of surface markings, this may impose a cost on parking operators or landowners. However, it should result in fewer unfair parking charges for drivers in general and greater protection for disabled drivers in particular.
3.4 Material change – notices
Through our consultation we heard of instances where drivers who park regularly in a car park have received parking charges because the terms and conditions have been changed without their knowledge.
Where there is a material change to the terms and conditions for parking at a particular site, the Code requires parking operators to make this clear by placing additional notices at the site entrance and on repeater notices within the site for at least four months from the date of the change. As with signage generally, this will impose a cost on parking operators to produce and display the temporary additional signage.
4. Accessible parking (including Blue Badge)
Under the Equality Act 2010, parking operators must make reasonable adaptations to accommodate disabled people, for example providing lowered payment machines. Currently, many parking operators choose to adopt the Blue Badge scheme and provide designated bays for disabled people (although this is not required by law).
We heard from stakeholders about the importance of ensuring that the status of the Blue Badge scheme is clear for disabled drivers, who might expect the same conditions to apply to them as on public roads. The Code clarifies the duties on parking operators in relation to the Equality Act and Blue Badge scheme, including requirements if the parking operator chooses to recognise the scheme. Adaptations can be physical but also might apply to the time allowed for making a payment or accessing a vehicle. The Code also sets out requirements on operators in relation to signs, including ensuring that there is at least one sign on the site that can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, and expectations around designated bays if these are provided. It also requires that staff training includes disability awareness training.
While there may be some costs involved in changes to signage or the installation of payment machines, operators must already make such reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. Costs may be involved in ensuring disability awareness is included in staff training. However, we consider that the measures will advance equality of opportunity and reduce unlawful discrimination for disabled drivers.
5. Duration of parking period
Our consultation revealed considerable confusion and disagreement about how parking that is permitted for limited periods (whether free or for payment of a tariff) should be measured. This is a difficult issue because of the different circumstances drivers may encounter in different premises. The new Code introduces definitions for the consideration period, grace period and ‘no stopping’ areas.
5.1 Consideration period
Parking operators need to provide drivers with a reasonable period to enter premises, consider the terms and conditions that apply, decide whether or not to park there, and either find a space or leave the car park before becoming liable to any parking charge. The requirements around the length of the consideration period have not previously been consistent: one of the parking trade associations specifies that drivers must be given a minimum of five minutes to consider, the other does not stipulate a minimum time period.
We heard different views from stakeholders and the public on the consideration period. Some argued that it should be a ‘time to decide’, and therefore would be so context-specific that a minimum time should not be specified. Others argued that it should include the time to read the terms and conditions, find a space, and park. Without setting a minimum time, drivers may receive parking charges from merely entering a car park and looking for a space. There was also concern that the consideration period, together with the grace period, should not apply when parking in short stay areas as this could be seen as effectively gifting a 15-minute period of free parking.
We have concluded that the Code should require a minimum consideration period of five minutes where public parking is invited, with a requirement to include a longer consideration period for premises with more than 500 bays or if other factors (such as layout) require it. However, the Code does not require a consideration period in short-stay areas and on land where public parking is not invited, if this is clearly signed, as parking on such land would be trespass. The Code also makes clear that the consideration period ends at the point when the driver has parked and is therefore considered to have accepted the terms and conditions, which could be within the five-minute allowance.
This will benefit motorists by potentially reducing the number of parking charges issued while motorists are still considering the terms and conditions. Consequently, it could have some impact on parking operator revenue, for example if it leads to a reduction in the number of parking charges for motorists who otherwise would have received one. It may also have a marginal impact on revenue if it leads motorists to spend longer in a car park without having to pay, potentially reducing the supply of spaces which can be sold to other motorists.
5.2 Grace period
In most cases, private parking operators already add a ‘grace period’ of at least 10 minutes to the end of a parking period before a parking charge is issued, mirroring the requirements on local highway authorities. However, this is inconsistently applied, for example when the permitted period of parking is less than one hour. The grace period is added to provide some flexibility for drivers who have legitimately parked but overstayed the parking period by a short amount of time. For example, a driver may have difficulty locating their car in the car park or it may take longer than expected to ensure children are safely secured in the car.
While stakeholders and the public agreed that private parking operators must be required to provide drivers with a grace period, we heard different views about the length of the grace period and whether a standard minimum of 10 minutes should apply.
We have concluded that the Code should require a grace period of at least 10 minutes, in addition to the parking and consideration periods, for all private parking before a parking charge can be issued. This was generally considered to be a reasonable period and aligns with the grace period for local authority parking. It is required for all private parking, including short stay areas, as drivers are equally as likely to experience problems that lead to them overstaying in those circumstances.
Both trade associations currently require grace periods for most parking events. However, in making the requirement more consistent, there may be a small cost to operators who disproportionately provide parking for under one hour. This could be because parking that motorists paid for is now free or through lost custom due to a reduction in the turnover of parking spaces.
5.3 Prohibition on stopping
The Code relates specifically to parking on relevant land. However, the distinction between parking and stopping may often be small. Parking operators can only issue a parking charge where a vehicle could be interpreted as stopping if they have consent to do so on evidenced safety or security grounds from the parking association to which they belong. This may be the case, for example, within airport lands where stopping could create security concerns.
We envisage that costs will be marginal to operators who enforce ‘no stopping’ on sites where there are legitimate grounds to do so. There will be a greater cost to operators who enforce these terms and conditions where it is unwarranted.
6. Payment of the parking tariff
6.1 On-site payment
Many car parks require drivers to pay for parking on-site. Some stakeholders have argued that operators should be required to go to all reasonable efforts to offer more than one means of payment, as machines may be out of order, leading to confusion as to whether parking still needs to be paid for. Other stakeholders argued that this could impose an unreasonable cost burden. There is also the complication that a large site might have multiple payment machines but only one or two may be out of order.
The Code requires parking operators to display clearly whether payment is required, how payment is to be made, what rules apply in the event of one or more payment machines not working, and details for drivers to contact about problems with payment. Recognising that there will be different circumstances for different premises, it also sets out some best practice for on-site payment, including providing multiple means of payment.
This may require some costs to operators for improved signage. However, the Code does not mandate multiple means of payment so this should not be considered as a cost.
6.2 Pay-and-display
We heard concerns about displaying pay-and-display receipts, especially in the case of motorcycles and other vehicles that do not have windscreens and dashboards. There were complaints that proper checks for receipts are not always carried out by parking attendants. We also heard different views on the number of images required to show that a receipt has not been displayed.
The Code includes specific requirements for pay-and-display parking, including requiring operators to provide clear instructions on where the receipt should be displayed, requiring parking attendants to conduct a thorough check before issuing a parking charge for not displaying a receipt, and requiring time-stamped images showing that no receipt has been displayed where a parking charge is issued by post. This may involve some minimal costs to operators in terms of staff time required to conduct more rigorous checks and to improve the quality of photographic evidence.
6.3 Keying errors
Many parking operators rely on payment systems that require the driver to enter the vehicle registration mark (number plate) of their vehicle but make allowances for cancelling parking charges where a driver makes a minor error in entering their vehicle registration at an on-site machine, by telephone or online.
The Code requires all parking operators to follow a policy to avoid issuing or enforcing a parking charge where keying errors occur. Keying errors are also identified as mitigating circumstances in Annex F to the Code, which sets out clear rules on exemptions from enforcement action and legitimate grounds for accepting appeals.
There may be some cost to operators if, to meet this requirement, their policy necessitates investment in improved technology. There will be a clear benefit to motorists through a reduction in the number of parking charges. At the same time, this may mean a reduction in revenue for operators who previously issued parking charges for keying errors.
7. Camera images – e.g. ANPR
7.1 Use of photographic evidence technology
Many private parking operators use automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology to issue parking charges. The Code prevents parking operators from issuing parking charges unless the photographic equipment is fit for purpose and maintained appropriately and complies with relevant standards and regulations. This may impose a cost to operators who need to update their technology.
7.2 Camera vehicles
Camera vehicles are used in some circumstances to capture evidence where drivers have broken parking terms and conditions. We heard various views from stakeholders about how camera vehicles should be permitted to operate.
We recognise that some parking operators make legitimate use of camera vehicles to monitor and enforce parking rules. However, we have heard of operators using camera vehicles to inappropriately conduct covert surveillance and serve drivers with unfair charges. The Code therefore requires that camera vehicles should be clearly identifiable as such, display information about the parking operator, and must not be used covertly or misleadingly. There may be some cost to operators in ensuring that surveillance vehicles are identifiable, for example in new branding.
7.3 Use of photographic evidence
We heard concerns that, where photographic evidence is used as the basis for a parking charge, images can be poor quality. This makes the process of appeal more subjective then necessary.
The Code sets out the standards that photographic evidence must meet for it to be used as the basis for a parking charge. A key requirement is that images generated by ANPR or CCTV must be subject to a manual quality control check. This may impose costs for operators in terms of additional staff time required.
7.4 Alteration of photographic evidence
While we proposed that parking operators should not digitally alter photographic evidence used as the basis for a parking charge, we recognise that there are certain circumstances where it is necessary to do so. Hence the Code prevents parking operators from digitally altering any photographic evidence except to blur faces or registration numbers of other vehicles in the images, in accordance with the GDPR, or to enhance the relevant vehicle registration number for clarity.
8. Notice of parking charge
8.1 Design and language
One of the main concerns raised about the design and language of parking charges is the extent to which some look like Penalty Charge Notices issued by local authorities or use language that intimidates the recipient into paying and dissuades them from lodging an appeal. The Code now prescribes the way a notice of parking charge must be presented and provides a template for a notice of parking charge.
There will be a one-off cost to operators in updating the templates for parking charges. However, this should not involve ongoing costs as updated parking charge templates can then be rolled out for new and existing sites.
8.2 Notice of parking charge – level
The government consulted separately on this issue and published its response to the ‘Private parking charges, discount rates, debt collection fees and appeals charter: further technical consultation’.
In the light of this technical consultation, the Code now incorporates the new system for capping the level of parking charges, which can be seen at Annex C. This mirrors the local authority system for public car parking, while retaining the existing £100 parking cap where parking is not invited, for blocking a disabled bay, and in some restricted car parks (residential and staff-only). It will provide greater consistency for drivers and ensure that charges are proportionate to the parking contravention. The Code also increases the discount for paying a parking charge within 14 days of its receipt from 40% to 50%, in line with local authorities.
A cap on the level of charges and an increase in the discount rate to 50% will directly benefit motorists through a reduction in the level of the parking charges for most breaches of the terms and conditions.
The new caps will also lead to a likely reduction in income from charges for parking operators. The impact will vary in accordance with the commercial arrangements between operator and landowners.
Some parking operators run free car parks and generate revenue exclusively or mostly through parking charges. This is especially the case in retail locations. Capping the levels of parking charges may mean that costs are transferred to landowners, who have to pay or pay more for services which were previously offered free by operators or supplemented with revenue from parking charges.
This could translate to a marginally higher cost of goods and services in some areas (for example, if free parking becomes paid for or is passed on through higher prices), or no parking management in others. In other cases, the renegotiating of contracts between landowners and parking operators could simply mean a reduction in turnover and profitability for parking operators.
The British Parking Association (BPA) commissioned an impact assessment in early 2021 that suggested the changes to charges could result in significant loss of income to operators, with potential significant impacts to business viability.
This provides one view of the possible economic impact. However, this was not a common theme of parking industry responses to the public consultations that we have run, which focused instead on the deterrent effect of parking charges. Moreover, we consider that some of the assumptions contained within the industry assessment may overstate impacts, including that all parking operator revenue is generated from parking charges. The economic impact to the industry should be considered alongside the reduction in harms to motorists from excessive or unfair parking charges that the Code will introduce. There are widespread concerns about the private parking industry, as evidenced by a surging number of private parking charges, significant level of correspondence to the Department, and interest in Parliament, which the Code will address.
If the new caps lead to an erosion in the deterrent effect of parking charges, this could incentivise motorists to break the rules. In some cases, an increase in the number of parking charges could mitigate the impact of a reduction in the level of parking charges for operators. At the same time, however, it would represent a reduction in the efficiency of parking management, imposing indirect costs through marginally increased difficulty accessing goods and services, higher journey times and poorer land use.
If the reduction in the level of parking charges makes it commercially unviable to recover parking charges, this could have an indirect negative impact on the efficiency of parking management for business premises. The assessment commissioned by BPA suggested a large impact on retail/hospitality sectors.
8.3 Process for appealing a notice of parking charge
We heard different views from stakeholders about how appeals of parking charges should be managed, including the timescales for appeals and the need to prevent drivers from being able to appeal the same parking charge multiple times once the appeals process has been exhausted.
The Code sets out requirements on parking operators to provide a process to appeal a parking charge within 28 days of its delivery, or outside of this period where the person who is appealing provides evidence of exceptional circumstances. In considering appeals, parking operators must consider whether there were any mitigating circumstances that mean the parking charge should be cancelled.
The government’s technical consultation last year included proposals for the establishment of an appeals charter to cover mitigating circumstances. The government has published its response to the ‘Private parking charges, discount rates, debt collection fees and appeals charter: further technical consultation’.
The Code now incorporates the content of the appeals charter at Annex F, setting out mitigating circumstances such as keying errors that parking operators must take into account when evidence is provided by the person appealing a parking charge. The Code will be reviewed every two years and, for later versions of the Code, we expect these mitigating circumstances to be informed by the judgements of the new single appeals service.
The Code sets out what must happen when an appeal is rejected. Where an appeal to the parking operator is unsuccessful, the person who received the charge must have the option either to pay the parking charge or appeal to the appeals service. Parking operators are required to hold information on parking charges and appeals for three years. This will allow the new Scrutiny and Oversight Board to monitor and evaluate the Code before recommending changes in the next version of the Code.
Motorists will benefit through an improved appeals system, including clearer processes for the grounds of appeal to the parking operator. This may involve some additional costs to operators if it leads to an increased number of parking charges being overturned at the first appeal stage.
9. Escalation of costs
The government consulted separately on this issue and published its response to the ‘Private parking charges, discount rates, debt collection fees and appeals charter: further technical consultation’.
To protect drivers from escalating costs, in the consultation we proposed to cap debt recovery fees at the existing industry level of £70. However, the consultation did not generate evidence to support the case for additional charges. As a result, the Code prevents parking operators from adding any additional fees to the original parking charge or parking tariff (if this is higher than the parking charge to be paid). We will review this as part of the general review of the Code that will take place within two years of its implementation.
This will provide an immediate benefit to motorists through the removal of additional fees at the debt recovery stage. There will be some direct costs to Debt Recovery Agencies (DRAs) who rely on additional fees for their revenue or to parking operators who will have to pay for debt recovery services from the revenue from parking charges. There may be some indirect costs if it becomes less viable to recover unpaid parking charges, for example a reduction in the deterrent effect, leading to less efficient parking management.
10. Action to recover unpaid parking charges
The government consulted separately on this issue and published its response to the ‘Private parking charges, discount rates, debt collection fees and appeals charter: further technical consultation’.
The Code introduces safeguards on the recovery of debt, including an obligation to use reasonable endeavours, including contacting credit reference agencies to undertake a ‘soft trace’, to establish correct correspondence details.
Moreover, the Code requires that all DRAs involved in the collection of private parking-related debt must be full members of an Accredited Parking Association (APA) to ensure their accountability to the sector. Membership of an APA is conditional on the DRA having been certified against a robust new Certification Scheme which will ensure the DRA’s conformity with the Code.
There will be a small direct cost to operators and DRAs in paying for their certificate of conformity with the new Certification Scheme and for any improvements in existing processes required to reach the new standards.
11. Complaints handling
A complaint in this context is about the conduct of or process adopted by a parking operator rather than an appeal of a specific parking charge, although a complaint may relate to the operator’s handling of a specific parking charge.
The Code puts obligations on parking operators to have and follow a documented policy and procedure around complaints. This includes treating complaints as appeals, where appropriate. We heard some concerns about difficulties in recording complaints over the telephone, which can often be fraught. The Code does not prevent parking operators from requiring that complaints be made in writing (by post or e-mail). There will be some direct costs to implementing appropriate and compliant complaints processes, for example for staff training.
12. Insurance
Under the Code, the parking operator must have the appropriate public liability and employers’ liability insurance, as is already required by trade associations.
13. Professional standards
13.1 Training
Currently, parking operators require parking attendants to complete the appropriate training. We heard concerns from stakeholders and the public that some people who issue parking charges, for example small businesses where the proprietor enforces parking themselves, will not have received any training and therefore may put themselves at risk in issuing parking charges.
The Code introduces greater requirements on parking operators to ensure that all staff are appropriately trained, including all staff working as parking attendants (i.e. on site), handling and processing appeals, and operating ANPR systems. There may be direct costs to operators in ensuring appropriate staff training.
13.2 Identification for parking attendants
Under the Code, all staff working as parking attendants are required to carry an ID card that identifies the parking operator they are working for and show it to drivers if requested. Depending on the level of existing compliance, there could be some costs to operators involved in attaining staff ID cards.
14. Relationship with landowner
In line with current practice, parking operators who do not own the land on which they are carrying out parking management must have written confirmation from the landowner to be able to do so. The new Code introduces some changes to landowner agreements to ensure landowners have been made aware of and accept the approach their chosen parking operator will take. It also clarifies responsibilities between the landowner and the parking operator. There may be some direct costs to operators and landowners in renegotiating and signing landowner agreements.
15. Self-ticketing/self-reporting
In some circumstances, a landowner or another person who is not employed by a parking operator may issue a parking charge or record the evidence to issue a parking charge themselves. For example, the staff of a small business with a small number of ‘client-only’ parking spaces might be responsible for issuing or recording evidence of a parking charge for misuse of those spaces, rather than the parking operator.
We heard different views about whether such self-ticketers must issue a parking charge at the time of the parking contravention, or whether they can work with a parking operator to have the notice issued remotely by post. Some people argued that drivers should be alerted at the time of the contravention so that they do not inadvertently repeat the contravention before the notice of parking charge arrives in the post, or do not receive the posted notice and so only find themselves liable at a late stage in the process. This may be the case if there has been a change of address that has not yet registered on the DVLA system. Conversely, we are aware of concerns that parking attendants and others could be put in danger if they had to issue a parking charge at the time of the contravention in all circumstances.
The Code therefore makes clear that, where third parties are authorised to carry out self-ticketing, a notice of parking charge should be put on the vehicle or handed to the driver unless it is not reasonably practical to do so, which includes circumstances where doing so would put the person issuing the notice at risk. This might be because the vehicle is moving or the behaviour of the driver is aggressive.
16. Incentive schemes
Some parking operators utilise incentive schemes to motivate staff and improve their performance. While incentive schemes can reasonably be used to encourage more effective staff performance, including for on-site parking attendants who are assiduously identifying instances where terms and conditions have been broken, they must not be based on encouraging the issue of as many notices as possible (however tentative their grounds for issue).
The Code makes clear that parking operators must not include elements that separately incentivise the issue of a greater number of notices of parking charge (as opposed to the accuracy and efficiency with which they are issued). In some cases, this could reduce the number of parking charges issued. However, if compliance remains constant, it is likely to assume that these charges may have been issued unfairly and that therefore there will be a clear benefit for motorists.
Annex A Entrance signs
This section sets out requirements in relation entrance signs to car parks, including the text that must be included, the size, visibility and legibility of the text.
Annex B Consideration and grace periods
This section sets out requirements in relation to consideration and grace periods for different classes of land.
Annex C Permissible parking charge and mandatory discounts
This section sets out the levels of parking charges for different parking contraventions, inside and outside London, and the discount rate that will be applied if the payment is made within 14 days of the parking charge being received.
The government consulted separately on this issue and has published its response to the [‘Private parking charges, discount rates, debt collection fees and appeals charter: further technical consultation’] (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-charges-discount-rates-debt-collection-fees-and-appeals-charter-further-technical-consultation).
Annex D Notice of parking charge – example of standard text
This section provides an example of the standard text that a notice of parking charge must contain.
Annex E Terminology in parking operator/debt recovery agent correspondence and communication
This section makes clear that the notice of parking charge must not use terms which imply that parking is being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory authority, nor pressurise the reader such that they do not consider all their options or make a decision that they might not otherwise have made.
We heard in the consultation about parking operators or debt recovery agencies using misleading, intimidatory, or aggressive language in relation to a parking charge. This section also sets out the wording that parking operators and debt recovery agencies must and must not use in relation to a private parking charge in order to prevent this.
Annex F Exempt vehicle cases, no-stopping zones, and appeals
This section contains a list of vehicles that are exempt from parking charges, including vehicles that are responding to an emergency, and instances where vehicles must not receive a parking charge for stopping in a ‘no-stopping zone’.
It also contains an appeals charter that sets out the mitigating circumstances that the parking operators must recognise as warranting the cancellation of a parking charge. The government consulted separately on this issue and has published its response to the ‘Private parking charges, discount rates, debt collection fees and appeals charter: further technical consultation’.
Annex G Sample landowner/operator notice
This section provides an example of the notice that the landowner and parking operator that is managing parking on the land must agree to ensure they are clear about things like the approach that the parking operator is taking and the terms and conditions that they will apply to the land.
