Is the Private Parking Code of Practice about to become a reality? And if so, who are the winners and losers?
??? Anthony Eskinazi
Founder at JustPark, Chief Strategy Officer at ParkHub, Investor, NED, Advisor
In a move they say is aimed at safeguarding drivers' interests, the UK Government has taken a decisive step in what has been a long-running process toward a Private Parking Code of Practice by beginning a new eight-week public consultation and call for evidence.
The two most controversial elements of their plans are the reduction of the maximum parking charge limit down significantly from ￡100, and the potential removal of debt recovery fees.?
In my mind, this is a conveniently timed move from the government’s perspective, with Conservative favour falling and a general election imminent, to curry voters’ favour - with them spinning a fairer system for all motorists using private car parks.
There is no disagreement here that, like most industries, there are rogue companies walking amongst us who give the parking industry a bad name. However, for the majority of us working within the parking sector, there are rightful concerns about the implications of what the government is proposing, and it is hoped that the government will take the perspectives of both sides into consideration and the various arguments in favour and defence of the new practice code, as outlined below.
?
Positive Arguments for the Private Parking Code of Practice
Reduced parking fine charges will boost driver confidence?
Among the key proposals under consideration is reducing the maximum parking charge limit from ￡100 to what could be as low as ￡50. This move would slash parking charges for millions of drivers and give people more confidence to park in private car parks across the UK without fear of exorbitant charges and penalties. While we're in the middle of a cost-of-living and energy crisis, a drop in fees will bring much-needed relief for many.
?
A fairer appeal process
The introduction of an independent appeals service as part of the Private Parking Code of Practice promises a more streamlined and equitable process for contesting parking charges.?
This will benefit both drivers and operators.
Drivers often cite that confusing signs and unclear rules lead to issues. So, the new appeals service will provide a much-needed safety net, ensuring that unjust charges are promptly addressed.
Whilst for parking operators, the introduction of an independent appeals service will streamline the process of handling appeals. This could translate to cost savings, reduced administrative burdens and increased efficiency within the industry.
?
Enhanced transparency and clarity
By tackling issues related to misleading signs and the lack of grace periods, the proposed changes aim to establish a clearer and more transparent industry. This newfound clarity will encourage drivers to utilise private car parks without fear of unjust charges, fostering positive relationships between drivers and parking operators.
?
Reputation boost and public trust
The proposed changes aim to create a more equitable and transparent parking industry. By addressing issues such as confusing signs and unfair charges, the industry has a unique opportunity to boost its reputation and gain the trust of the public, potentially leading to increased patronage.
Raising standards
If parking machines and mobile applications (like JustPark ) are designed intuitively and are easy to use, drivers are more likely to comply with parking rules and regulations, thereby increasing overall compliance with the new parking code of practice. It also reduces the chances of errors or misunderstandings. This would result in fewer violations, penalties, and disputes.
?
The Negative Arguments for the Private Parking Code of Practice
Impact on parking operators' revenue leading to closures
With reduced charges and the potential banning of debt recovery fees, some operators may experience financial strains and operational challenges. It is highly likely that smaller parking operators will need to cease trading or be absorbed by larger organisations, meaning jobs might be lost.?
It is essential to strike a balance between ensuring a fair system for drivers and maintaining the sustainability of the parking industry which all drivers rely on.
?
Possible congestion increases
Parking spaces could be reduced as it won’t be as cost-effective to manage compliance. This could then lead to rising parking costs due to a drop in supply and more congestion.
?
Unforeseen Consequences of Banning Debt Recovery Fees
While the intention is to protect drivers from harsh penalties, banning debt recovery fees could also lead to potential difficulties for parking operators in recovering unpaid charges. Striking a balance between protecting drivers and ensuring fair operations is essential for the long-term health of the parking industry.
?
Risk of Non-Compliance
The cost of non-compliance won’t be enough of a deterrent which will lead to more drivers simply parking without paying or abusing spaces, adding to congestion issues and space scarcity as well as costing operators money.?
?
?Implementing complex changes
The various options and variations being proposed in the Private Parking Code of Practice may present a complex implementation process for parking operators. Industry players will need to adapt to the changes and comply with new regulations, which could pose initial challenges and confusion.?
Overall, whilst there is an argument that drivers’ best interests are at the heart of this plan. The reality is that the proposed reduction in parking charges and the potential banning of debt recovery fees could have significant financial implications for parking operators and their ability or willingness to manage car parks that drivers rely on.
It is crucial that during their consultation process, the Government also assesses the potential impact on all sizes of parking operators to ensure their continued viability. And as stakeholders, it is our collective responsibility to also contribute and provide thoughtful insights during this period to ensure that the final code strikes the right balance. By collaborating and understanding the nuances of this pivotal proposal, we can continue towards creating a parking landscape that is fair, transparent, and supportive of drivers, businesses, and local communities alike.
Scum bag at UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC)
1 年Completely disagree with you and I would expect nothing less then the opinion of an individual who works for parking enforcement. I remember when I helped to campaign for the reduction of gambling machines (fobts) and the maximum stake, all the underhanded tactics used by the gambling industry such as, 30000 will lose their jobs and hundreds of shop closures, it was complete fiction. How many jobs did the parking enforcers estimate, 3000, really when the parking enforcement companies are all ready in the process of replacing most car park attendents with cameras. Again pure lying to protect greedy profits.
Product, Digital Workplace & Gaming
1 年Striking the right balance between driver interests and the long-term viability of parking operators is essential to shape a fair and effective code. Hopefully as this evolves we'll reach a better balance, good article Anthony!
Managing Director at OnTrack Retail
1 年Why not just make car parks post-pay rather than pre-pay? That solves most of the issues regarding genuine customers being stung with fines because they forgot to purchase a ticket or over-stayed the ticket that they bought. The car park at my local station was pre-pay and in the 5 years that I used it, I forgot to buy a ticket at least 20 times and got a fine each time. It has recently switched to being post-pay, problem solved.
Making travel better through technology
1 年Having had the experience in the rail industry where the penalty fare was way too low to the point that it stopped being a deterrent, I see the risk. However, having received a PCN of ￡100 on accidental 20 minute overstay on a 4 hour ticket in a carpark where the daily charge is ￡3.50, it seemed rather disproportionate and profiteering rather than enforcement. Perhaps linking the PCN to 5x the daily rate or similar might be a deterrent and proportionate. The other thing that would make sense is to consider the customer's history: If I'm regularly paying for a car park and forget one day, that should be a lower penalty than someone who forgets more often than they pay.
Legal Counsel at APCOA Parking
1 年What is the difference between an hour and two hours? Where do you draw the line? When the person parked they knew what they had paid for (even if it was temporary free parking). Would it be acceptable for someone to take a train or a bus for one stop only and say they didn’t realise the fare was only payable if they went for two stops? Most operators will be open to an appeal on the basis of small mistake but what if this is the third or fourth (or more) times that person has overstayed? Is that still a mistake? And what if the parking is in a area reserved for some people with special interests? Is it right or reasonable for them to be able to claim it was an innocent mistake? Even if it was for only a few minutes. And if they refuse to pay the price then they need to be aware there are consequences some of which may be financial.