UK Government consultation on a statutory private parking code of practice

This is Consumer Scotland’s response to a UK Government open consultation on a statutory private parking code of practice

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 a new version of a private parking code of practice and an accompanying compliance framework for private parking operators.

Consumer Scotland has responded as the statutory consumer advocacy body for Scotland. 

In summary Consumer Scotland: 

• Supports the retention of the current £100 as the maximum cap on private parking charges, aligning them with public penalties.
• Does not consider there to be any clear justification for high additional debt recovery fees, particularly at their current cap level of £70 on top of the initial charge.
• Emphasises the importance of an effective Standards, Oversight and Scrutiny Board to secure accountability and consumer confidence
• Expects greater transparency and stronger consumer protections to underpin the Code and root out bad practice.
• Highlights the need to ensure that differences in Scotland’s legal and consumer landscape are properly recognised, especially regarding registered keeper liability.

As the statutory advocate, Consumer Scotland will continue to represent and champion consumers’ interests in this area.

Caps on parking charges

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]

Consumer Scotland agrees.

Question 7(b): Please explain your answer.

• Consumer Scotland agrees it makes sense for the Government to retain a £100 cap on private parking charges, but only as a clear and fair upper limit, rather than an inflexible fixed amount that applies regardless of circumstances. This approach ensures fairness while allowing for proportionality and discretion.
• Scotland’s public decriminalised parking enforcement (DPE) regime allows local authorities to set an initial Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) of up to a maximum of £100, (this was increased from £60 as of 1 April 2023). These charges are discounted by 50% if paid within 14 days, or increased by 50% if further enforcement is required. For other offences such as pavement parking, double parking, or parking across dropped kerbs, the PCN is fixed at £100 (i.e. no discretion for a lower initial amount, although early payment also discounts that to £50).
• With this benchmark, a £100 ceiling for private charges aligns with public-sector practice. It should not, however, become a default, one-size-fits-all figure universally applied. Instead, operators should be empowered to issue a lower charge where appropriate, allowing them to assess situations based on considerations such as:

• urban v rural challenges, i.e., busy city sites might require more robust enforcement and higher penalties to keep customers flowing
• the commercial realities of managing busy or less-busy sites, (i.e. as per above – limited spaces might make higher penalties more justifiable)
• the severity of any relevant breach

This flexibility enables proportional fees that reflect real-world contexts while safeguarding consumers from excessive or blanket penalties. To quote the Government’s own previous consultation on this matter: “To provide greater consistency for motorists and ensure proportionality, many motorist and consumer groups called for private parking to be aligned with the local authority system”.

A ceiling, rather than a fixed charge, offers several advantages:

Fairness and Proportionality: Operators retain discretion to issue a lower fee for minor or technical breaches or for commercial realities - avoiding penalising consumers harshly for honest mistakes.

Consumer Clarity: Knowing there’s a maximum charge helps motorists understand the most they could face, without the fear of unpredictable inflated fees.

Aligned Standards: This cap follows well-established public-sector practice in Scotland, promoting consistency and reinforcing transparency across public and private sectors.

Room to Evolve: A maximum provides a stable foundation, with the option to introduce a tiered or evidence-based system once more data is gathered.

In short, Consumer Scotland agrees the Code should enshrine the £100 industry cap as a ceiling, not a mandated flat rate. This model balances clarity and flexibility, offering motorists reassurance while encouraging private operators to adopt reasonable, context-sensitive charging practices.  Where an operator chooses to impose a fixed penalty at or near the £100 maximum, it should also be justifiable for the site in question. This is a matter that should form part of any general monitoring by the Strategy and Oversight Board.

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]

Consumer Scotland disagrees.

Question 8(b): Please explain your answer

As stated above, in Scotland, local authorities enforce Penalty Charge Notices under the decriminalised parking enforcement (DPE) regime. These PCNs are discounted by 50% if paid within 14 days, and increased by 50% if further enforcement becomes necessary. 

The Government proposed in a previous consultation to explicitly align aligning parking charge practices with local authority PCNs, singling out the 50% early-payment discount as a key element to improve consistency and reduce confusion among motorists: “In keeping with creating greater consistency, we propose that parking operators will be required to offer a 50% discount if the parking charge is paid within 14 days.” 

The 50% early-payment model is embedded in publicly enforced PCN systems across Scotland and the wider UK. For example, National Debtline notes that Councils provide a 50% reduction if a PCN is paid quickly after issuance. Guidance from Citizens Advice also reflects this - Appealing a parking ticket - Citizens Advice

Such alignment would signal to consumers that private parking enforcement mirrors familiar public-sector standards, fostering transparency, and reinforcing fairness across parking regimes.

According to the consultation the rationale for retaining a 40% early-payment discount lies in grounding the new Code in existing industry norms at the level introduced of the industry’s Approved Trade Associations (ATAs). It also suggests this will then enable a structured, evidence-based review that could lead to adopting a 50% discount only later, if there’s clear justification to do so. 

Consumer Scotland considers this approach counter-intuitive: beginning with a lower discount rate and then seeking future justification for raising the discount does not place consumer interests at the centre of policy.

By contrast, beginning the policy framework at the more appropriate 50% discount, (consistent with Scottish and other local authority practice) establishes fairness, clarity, consistency and trust from the outset. It also naturally incorporates greater incentives for early payment. Thereafter, and only if  evidence shows that the 50% discount rate is not working, should consideration be given to reducing the level of discount. This would ensure that any change to the discount level, to take it out of alignment with the discounts provided by public sector operators, would be responsive and evidence-based rather than pre-emptively restrictive.

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?

To protect consumers amid rising living costs, the Scrutiny and Oversight Board should as a minimum prioritise these key considerations when evaluating potential changes to the parking charge cap:

The Cost-of-Living & Its Impact on Motorists: Inflation has been significantly eroding household budgets, peaking at over 11% in 2022 and remaining a central economic challenge for consumers into 2024. Relevant metrics such as wage growth, food and energy cost inflation, and household income pressures should inform assessments of whether the cap remains affordable and fair.

Alignment with Local Authority Parking Charges & Policy Direction: In principle, private parking fees should not exceed comparable public penalties. Synchronising with the local authority standard, where early payments receive 50% discounts and PCNs remain proportional should be the aim. This fosters clarity and consistency for consumers. Evidence shows motorists expect fairness and consistency across public and private enforcement.

Deterrence Effect vs. Proportionality and Affordability Balance: Any cap level must achieve the appropriate balance between setting a penalty that provides a sufficient deterrent, while being fair, proportionate and  affordable for consumers. Any assumptions about an effective price-cap should be empirically tested.

Data-Driven, Independent Oversight: The consultation underlines that any cap changes should be evidence-led and made via the SOB’s independent oversight: changes must be based on clear, robust data. The SOB should assess trends like the number of charges issued, successful appeals, operator profit margins, and the effectiveness of the cap in maintaining compliance without overburdening motorists.

Consumer Confidence and Fairness Standards: In the broader context of public scrutiny, given the surge in private parking enforcement and widespread mistrust among motorists - consumers expect charges to be transparent, fair, and enforceable. If caps or discounts fail to reflect this expectation, the SOB should recommend reforms that bolster trust and transparency. For example:

Private car parks: UK drivers seek justice as penalties hit record | Consumer affairs | The Guardian

What’s behind the boom in car parking charge tickets?

Debt recovery fees

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

Consumer Scotland opposes the retention of the current industry £70 cap on debt recovery fees. There should be a presumption against high debt-recovery fees until there has been a more thorough analysis of their purpose, effect, and proportionality.    

We set out here a number of reasons for our assessment of this issue:

Disproportionate Burden on Consumers:

• The consultation highlights that only around 13-14 % of motorists actually pay at the debt recovery stage, prompting questions about whether the £70 sum acts as a deterrent or an unfair penalty for a minority who have already engaged with the process. 

Industry Profit Margins:

• The Government’s own analysis shows that debt recovery agencies operate with profit margins around 63%. This  raises concerns  about the rationale for recovery fees being placed at £70, in terms of how much of those fees are simply providing revenue generation for agencies, rather than covering legitimate administrative costs. We have not seen any independent, comprehensive assessment as to why debt recovery fees should be as high as £70. At £70, the debt recovery cap represents more than two-and-a-half times the estimated break-even administrative cost estimates for debt recovery (according to the Government’s own analysis).

Out of step with wider regulatory standards:

In other regulated sectors, default or recovery charges are tightly controlled and significantly lower:

• The Financial Conduct Authority caps default fees for high-cost short-term credit at £15, and applies a 100% total cost cap to prevent escalation.
• In utilities and telecoms, late payment or recovery charges are not fixed and support is available to those in debt.(see for example where energy suppliers do not impose a fixed “debt recovery charge” on individual consumers. Instead, the costs associated with unpaid bills and debt administration, known as debt-related costs are incorporated into the energy price cap through specific allowances. See also, OFCOM polices on treating vulnerable consumers fairly.

It’s higher than amounts upheld in case law:

• In ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court accepted that an £85 parking charge was not “unconscionable or extravagant,” a decision that was grounded in the legitimate commercial interest in “managing parking spaces”. This case did not consider the level of debt recovery fees that would be part of the process.
• Under the current system, however, a motorist could face a £100 charge plus a further £70 debt recovery fee. This £170 figure is 200% of the £85 figure considered by the Court, bringing into question that additional debt recovery fees may push potential overall liabilities beyond what has previously been legally tested.

Growing levels of charges and debt recovery fees:

• RAC research shows that private parking companies issued a record 14.4 million parking charge notices in 2024-25, more than double the number issued just six years earlier. This increase will impact on those on low incomes, people with disabilities, or those facing digital exclusion who are likely to be less able to challenge unfair charges or navigate complex appeal processes. 
• The resultant increase in debt recovery fees are likely to impact most heavily on consumers in vulnerable circumstances, who may already struggle with affordability, technological barriers, or a lack of clarity around payment systems. As per the Consultation’s impact assessment acknowledging the issues affecting vulnerable consumers, the effect of high and frequently applied debt collection fees requires deeper analysis before being applied in the Code.

Reassessing the rigid £70 cap opens up a chance to reshape the system toward fairer, evidence-based standards, rooted in proportionality and justified thresholds.

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

Consumer Scotland is not yet persuaded that it is reasonable to impose separate debt recovery fees on consumer motorists, and we suggest this question requires fuller assessment before any firm conclusion can be reached. The key concern is whether such fees are genuinely reflective of the necessary administrative costs involved in recovering unpaid charges (and the role they play to incentivise settlement) or whether they instead function as punitive surcharges that risk escalating modest disputes into disproportionate liabilities.

In principle, it is reasonable that operators should be able to recover unavoidable costs of administration.

However, the consultation has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a separate, additional fee is the most appropriate or proportionate mechanism. Without a transparent breakdown of what the reasonable costs of administration might be; how they vary across operators; and how they compare to standards in other regulated sectors; there is a real risk that consumers will be subjected to unfair and excessive charges.

In summary at this stage, Consumer Scotland considers the justification for automatic debt recovery fees to be unclear. We therefore do not support their inclusion in the Code until further, independent evidence is provided to demonstrate that they are both necessary and proportionate.

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]

Consumer Scotland does not as yet have any data or evidence relating to the number of private parking cases being taken to the Sheriff Court. However, based on operational insight and comparative analysis:

Scale of enforcement vs. court involvement: The volume of cases proceeding to civil court is likely to be only a small proportion of all PCNs issued. Many disputes are resolved, informally dropped, or dealt with via appeals services, with fewer still likely to escalate to court (given the time and cost involved).

SCTS statistical role: The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) publishes annual and quarterly civil justice statistics, usually prepared in conjunction with the Scottish Government’s Justice Analytical Services. These report on broad categories of civil business across the Sheriff Courts, Court of Session, and tribunals (e.g. family law, personal injury, debt, eviction, damages)

Cases are recorded under general headings such as: Personal injury,    Family, Debt, Damages, Other civil procedure.

These categories are not broken down into specific causes of action such as “private parking charges.”

Small claims/simple procedure:

Most private parking cases would, if raised, fall under the simple procedure in the Sheriff Court (introduced in 2016, replacing small claims and summary cause). SCTS records volumes of simple procedure cases, but does not classify them by the underlying issue (e.g. parking vs. other consumer debt).

As a result, SCTS cannot provide statistics on:

• The number of private parking charge cases raised
• The outcomes of those cases (settled, decree granted, dismissed, etc.)
• The trends over time

At present, these cases are subsumed into broader civil debt or contract dispute categories. There is no public disaggregation specifically for private parking enforcement.

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

No, Consumer Scotland does not hold a primary dataset on the impact of parking debt recovery fees from private parking. However, Advice Direct Scotland (ADS) consistently records a high volume of complaints relating to private parking. This reveals significant consumer concern and highlights widespread harm, despite little evidence of cases proceeding through the courts. While ADS does not publish granular dispute figures publicly, its inclusion of "parking issues" among core advice areas attests to the frequency and scale of demand for assistance in this area. 

Signage

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]

Consumer Scotland strongly disagrees

Question 15(b): Please explain your answer

There do not appear to be any clear consumer benefits to the proposal to remove the prescribed sign size as best practice.

For a contract to be valid, consumers must be fully aware that they are agreeing to its legally binding terms, i.e., before they drive onto and park in a private car park. The signs at the entrance and throughout the site is the primary mechanism by which operators communicate their offer. If the signage is unclear, obscured, or insufficiently prominent, there is a risk that consumers will be pursued for a contractual breach without evidence that the offer was actually accepted.

We would assert that a prescriptive and compelling size of sign and text is required. In the absence of an agreed best practice minimum standard for sign size (and visibility), consumers are left in a weaker position to challenge where they believe a contract was not entered into. Without an agreed standard size there is a risk that operators may assert that their signs (and offer) were “large enough” and “visible enough,” wherever this is arguable, creating a significant evidential imbalance. A best practice minimum standard removes uncertainty, promotes fairness, and ensures a level playing field for consumers in different locations. It gives consumers confidence that they have been adequately informed of the terms before any alleged contract is formed.

This approach is consistent with both consumer protection principles and established case law. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court placed particular weight on the prominence and clarity of signs in upholding the enforceability of a parking charge. The judgment demonstrates that enforceability depends heavily on whether the terms were brought fairly and prominently to the consumer’s attention. 

Consumer Scotland considers that where, after an official assessment, signage or text fails significantly and seriously to meet any prescribed minimum code standard, all PCNs previously issued at that seriously non-compliant site should be cancelled automatically. This would create a strong incentive for operators to comply while providing consumers with clarity, fairness, and meaningful protection. This assessment could be carried out as part of general code compliance as designed by the Scrutiny and Oversight Board.

The rationale for this approach is that if a site is in serious breach of the Code’s signage requirements, then every Parking Charge Notice subsequently issued from that site could potentially be unlawful under consumer protection legislation (consumers could be misled by action or omission). Following the Code and signage text size is also an important consideration to meet the “reasonable cause” test under the Regulations that allow access to registered keeper details for the pursuit of an alleged unpaid parking charge contract.

Pay before exit in car parks using ANPR

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]

Consumer Scotland strongly agrees

Question 16(b): Please explain your answer

We agree that a parking charge should not be issued where a motorist makes full payment before leaving an ANPR-controlled car park. To do otherwise is disproportionate, undermines consumer trust, and risks treating compliant motorists as though they had breached the rules. A clear safeguard is required to ensure that full payment before departure constitutes compliance in all cases, removing the scope for unfair or punitive enforcement.

Consideration and Grace Periods

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]

Consumer Scotland response: No

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

The reintroduction of a statutory Code creates an important opportunity to reassess the existing approach taken by operators to consideration and grace periods, rather than simply retaining the current timings in Table B.1. We are not persuaded that the existing arrangements provide sufficient protection for motorists.

Consideration and grace periods are not minor technical details: they are essential safeguards to ensure fairness, particularly given that ANPR entry and exit times rarely correspond precisely with the period a vehicle is parked and it is essential that consumers have sufficient opportunity to pay. In practice, many motorists - and especially those in vulnerable circumstances - require longer than the present minimums to locate a space, understand contractual terms, navigate complex or unreliable payment systems, or leave a busy car park safely. This consultation provides a chance to design timings that genuinely reflect consumer experience and protect against unfair penalisation. Consumer Scotland therefore recommends that the Code re-examines the principles underpinning grace periods in full, and introduces longer, clearly enforceable minimums that align with the realities of how people actually use and experience car parks.

Reduced charge for certain mitigating circumstances

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]

Consumer Scotland response: Cancellation of charge 

Question 18(b): Please explain your answer

Consumer Scotland’s assessment is that where mitigating circumstances apply, the appropriate default remedy is cancellation of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), not a reduced charge. Mitigating circumstances typically involve situations where consumers had little or no control over events, for example, medical emergencies, equipment or payment system failures, or misleading or absent signage. In these cases, a reduced charge still penalises the consumer for circumstances beyond their control, undermining the principles of fairness and proportionality.

Cancellation provides a clear and consistent safeguard that protects consumers, strengthens trust in the system, and avoids unnecessary disputes and escalation. A mandatory cancellation rule in such cases would deliver certainty and fairness for consumers, while incentivising operators to maintain clear signage, be sensitive to mitigating circumstances, have reliable systems, and proportionate enforcement practices.

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]

Consumer Scotland disagrees

Question 19(b): Please explain your answer

Consumer Scotland does not support the retention of a £20 reduced charge. Where mitigating circumstances apply, the fair and proportionate outcome is cancellation of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), not a partial penalty. A flat-rate reduced charge risks becoming a routine revenue-raising mechanism rather than a genuine recognition that the consumer was not at fault. If a motorist faced circumstances beyond their control, any financial penalty is inappropriate and undermines trust in the system. The Code should therefore provide for mandatory cancellation in such cases, rather than setting a reduced charge amount.

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

The “first charge provision” means a driver might get a reduced rate for their very first parking charge, but not for any later ones. In practice, this is confusing because it is not clear what counts as a “first” charge - is it the first ever, the first from one company, or the first in a year? This lack of clarity presents difficulties for consumers in understanding their rights, and creates a risk of inconsistent application by  operators. It is also risks unfairness for consumers if  only the first charge is  reduced, since drivers may face genuine problems more than once, such as machine failures or medical emergencies. In Consumer Scotland’s assessment the “first charge” rule should be removed, and where there are good reasons or unavoidable circumstances, the charge should be cancelled altogether rather than reduced.

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?

Consumer Scotland does not consider there to be any persuasive arguments for limiting a reduced charge to the first Parking Charge Notice. The concept is unclear, arbitrary, and unfair, since motorists may face more than one genuine, unavoidable difficulty. The Code should instead provide for cancellation where mitigating circumstances apply, not a one-time discount.

Additional mitigation for the Appeals Charter

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]

Consumer Scotland strongly agrees

Motorists should win an appeal if they can show they genuinely had no option but to breach the terms. This principle is vital to ensure that charges are not applied in circumstances where compliance was impossible or unreasonable.

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

Examples include:

• Medical emergencies: where a driver or passenger suddenly falls ill, requires urgent care, or an appointment runs over unexpectedly.
• Equipment or system failures: such as broken payment machines, card terminals, wifi or or app outages that prevent payment being made.
• Vehicle breakdowns: where the car cannot be moved without assistance.
• Misleading or missing signage: where contractual terms are not clearly displayed or are contradictory.
• External factors: such as being trapped in queues within the car park, being diverted by roadworks, or being delayed by incidents outside the motorist’s control.
• Minor, good-faith errors: such as mis-entering a registration digit at a machine, where there is no intent to avoid payment.

In each of these cases, it would be disproportionate and unfair to issue or uphold a charge. The Code should make clear that appeals must succeed whenever the driver can show a clear, reasonable reason for breaching the terms, and that operators cannot rely on technicalities to pursue enforcement in such circumstances.

Process for appealing parking charges

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]

Consumer Scotland agrees

Question 22(b): Please explain your answer. 

Consumers should not be disadvantaged when faced with genuine, exceptional situations that prevented them from appealing within the usual 28 days. Restarting the appeal period acknowledges that administrative timelines should not override fairness. Pausing enforcement and requiring parking operators to apply for a court stay when necessary helps ensure consumers are not unfairly penalised while their appeal is considered.

Circumstances for the appeal not being lodged within the normal timeframes may include:

• Serious illness or hospitalisation of the motorist or a close family member during the 28-day period.
• Bereavement: coping with the death of a close relative may reasonably delay administrative tasks.
• Postal delays or lost correspondence, where the motorist did not actually receive the PCN or appeal information in time.
• Absence from home due to armed forces deployment, extended work placement, or long-term travel.
• Vulnerability factors such as disability, mental health crises, or caring responsibilities that made timely response impractical.
• Operator errors: e.g. sending correspondence to the wrong address despite DVLA records being accurate.
• External emergencies such as natural disasters, major disruption, or local incidents preventing timely communication.

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]

Consumer Scotland agrees

Where payment is required to release a vehicle, for example at a barrier-controlled site, the motorist has no choice but to pay in order to leave. In such circumstances, payment cannot be taken as acceptance of liability, as it is made under duress. Preventing an appeal in these cases would be unfair and would remove an essential safeguard for consumers. The Code should make clear that motorists in these situations retain a full right of appeal, with refunds required where the charge is subsequently found to be invalid or disproportionate.

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]

Consumer Scotland agrees

Question 23(b): Please explain your answer

Many motorists may pay quickly, simply to avoid the threat of escalating costs, not because they accept the validity of the charge. This could be more common where consumers feel pressured by the limited timeframe of a discounted rate, or are anxious about the possibility of higher fees or debt recovery if they delay. In such circumstances, payment will not represent genuine consent or acceptance of liability, but rather a pragmatic step taken under financial pressure. To deny appeals in these cases would leave consumers without a meaningful route to challenge unfair or invalid charges. The Code should therefore guarantee the right to appeal even where a discounted payment has been made, with refunds issued if the appeal is upheld.

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]

Consumer Scotland disagrees

In Scotland, liability for a private parking charge arises only under the ordinary law of contract. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which introduced registered keeper liability in England and Wales, does not (yet) extend to Scotland. It follows that only the driver at the time of the alleged contravention can be held liable.

Encouraging or requiring a keeper to disclose the name of the driver (by any means) would therefore go beyond the current law in Scotland and place households in a difficult position, effectively obliging them to provide personal information about family members, friends, or colleagues. This is inappropriate, inconsistent with Scots contract law, and risks creating unfair pressure on keepers who were not party to the contract.

The Code must therefore reflect the Scottish legal position explicitly as it stands: liability does not rest with the registered keeper, and operators must demonstrate who the driver was if they wish to pursue a claim. This ensures clarity, reflects the distinct legal systems between Scotland and England & Wales.

Question 24(b): 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]

Consumer Scotland agrees

Question 24(b): Please explain your answer.

Consumer Scotland agrees in principle, but with important caveats.

If the actual driver is identified, then they should always retain the full right of appeal against any private parking charge. This is essential for fairness and due process.

However, in Scotland the starting point is different: liability can only ever rest with the driver, since the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not apply. Therefore, any framework must avoid placing undue pressure on keepers to disclose the driver’s identity. Households should not be coerced into naming another individual; doing so risks undermining trust, fairness and privacy.

Accordingly, while the right of appeal for the driver must be upheld, this must not be tied to any presumption that the keeper has a duty to disclose who was driving.

Where parking tariff exceeds the parking charge

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]

Consumer Scotland disagrees

Question 25(b): Please explain your answer

This would mean consumers are paying twice for the same issue,  once for the unpaid tariff and again for the parking charge. Such a scenario risks being unfair and confusing. The tariff is a genuine fee, but the parking charge is already meant to cover the cost of a breach. Asking for both could be excessive and punitive, which consumer law is designed to prevent.

Data

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

The data (paras 4.39 & 4.40) covers:

• Volume of parking charge notices issued.
• How many are paid, cancelled, or appealed.
• Success rates of appeals (to the operator and to IAS/POPLA).
• Debt recovery and court action data.
• Complaints data.
• Information on compliance with the Code.

This data is essential for transparency and accountability. It will help Government and the Scrutiny and Oversight Board understand how the system is working in practice. For example, whether charges are being issued fairly, how many are being cancelled on appeal, and whether debt recovery practices are proportionate.

From a Scottish perspective, this information is particularly important given the differences in law (no keeper liability) and enforcement routes. Without robust data collection, it would be impossible to identify poor practices, assess consumer detriment, or ensure that the Code is delivering fair outcomes. This data should therefore be broken down to show the figures and information as it applies in Scotland.

Compliance framework, Certification Scheme, The Scrutiny and Oversight 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]

Consumer Scotland strongly agrees.

Question 28(b): Please explain your answer

We strongly support the proposal that the Scrutiny and Oversight Board should be genuinely independent of the private parking industry, motorist groups and government officials. For the Board to be effective and to command the trust of consumers, it must not be seen as an extension of industry self-regulation or as a closed process managed solely by government. Independence is essential to ensure impartiality, transparency and credibility.

Independence and consumer trust

The Consultation acknowledges that the private parking industry has historically been dogged by alleged poor practices, limited accountability and consumer detriment.

 “….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”.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

As the consultation also highlights, complaints from across the UK including the AA and RAC consistently show concerns about unclear signage, unfair or excessive charges, misleading correspondence, and aggressive debt recovery. Against this background, an oversight body dominated by industry voices, or one that relies only on government officials, risks undermining legitimacy. An independent Board would help restore balance and build consumer confidence that monitoring of the Code is impartial and robust.

The need for consumer advocacy representation

It is essential that the Board includes independent consumer advocacy organisations with statutory responsibilities. In particular, Scottish representation on its design must be guaranteed. Scotland has a distinct legal framework which diverges in critical respects from England and Wales, most notably through the absence of statutory keeper liability (at this time) and differences in court procedures. Without Scottish input, there is a risk that oversight arrangements will struggle to reflect the realities of how parking charges are enforced in Scotland. Consumer Scotland, as the statutory consumer body for Scotland, would be willing to play a constructive role in this regard.

Rigorous enforcement of the Code

Independence should not be symbolic it must be matched by clear responsibilities and powers. The Board’s role must go beyond simply reviewing data. It should be able to make formal recommendations to Government, highlight systemic breaches, and ensure that meaningful sanctions follow when operators fail to comply with the Code. In particular, the removal of DVLA data access (or suspension for periods) should be considered where breaches are serious or repeated. Without enforcement, oversight risks becoming a “tick-box” exercise rather than a driver of cultural change in the sector.

Oversight of privileged access to personal data

Private parking operators benefit from an unusual privilege: electronic access to the DVLA registered keeper data which consumers are legally required to provide to a public authority. 

Because this disclosure is mandatory, it carries a heightened responsibility when it is further disclosed to private operators. If personal ‘citizen’ data is shared by the Government to private companies, it must be handled with the highest standards of fairness, accuracy, and transparency. Operators must be held to strict standards of propriety when pursuing charges on that basis. To preserve public trust in both the parking system and in government data stewardship, the privilege that operators enjoy in accessing consumer data must be matched by rigorous safeguards, robust accountability, and meaningful, independent oversight.

Crucially, this underlines why the Scrutiny and Oversight Board must itself be fully independent. Only a genuinely independent body can credibly oversee the use of such sensitive, government-mandated data and ensure that consumers are protected from unfair or disproportionate practices.

Transparency and accountability

The Board should ensure that its work, and the data it reviews, is transparent and accessible to the public. Publication of headline metrics (such as volumes of PCNs issued, appeal outcomes, cancellation rates, and debt recovery figures) is vital for accountability. Consumers should be able to see how the industry is operating in practice, and where improvements are needed.

Offer of assistance

Consumer Scotland, as the statutory advocate for consumers in Scotland, would welcome the opportunity to actively contribute to the design of the Oversight Board in a Scottish context. We would bring evidence of consumer detriment, insights on how to accurately reflect the legal differences, and an independent perspective on how best to safeguard consumer interests. This involvement would help ensure that the Board’s work is not only independent in form, but also effective in substance across all nations.

Guidance

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]

Consumer Scotland agrees.

Question 29(b): Please explain your answer

Clear, accessible guidance for motorists is essential if the Code of Practice is to work in practice. At present, the system is confusing for many consumers, with unclear terminology (“fines” vs “charges”), inconsistent processes, and limited understanding of appeal rights. Publishing official non-statutory guidance in plain language would help motorists know:

• what a parking charge notice is and how it differs from a penalty charge
• their rights of appeal and redress
• what information they should and should not have to provide
• how the system works differently in Scotland compared to England and Wales. (Scotland specific guidance for consumers)

From a Scottish perspective, it is particularly important that the guidance reflects the distinct legal position, e.g., the current absence of statutory keeper liability and the fact that contract law and court procedures differ. Without clear, specific content, there is a risk that consumers in Scotland will be misled into believing they have obligations which in law do not apply.

Such guidance would also provide a single trusted source of accurate information, reducing consumer reliance on internet forums and unofficial advice channels, where the risk of misinformation is greater and can  increase confusion and stress. Having one authoritative set of guidance published alongside the Code would therefore improve confidence, reduce disputes, and support better outcomes for motorists.

Consumer Scotland would be pleased to work with Government in developing this guidance to ensure that it is clear, accurate, and accessible, and that it reflects both UK-wide principles and Scotland’s distinct legal context.

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]

Consumer Scotland strongly agrees

Question 30(b): Please explain your answer.

Requiring operators to include a direct link to Government guidance on all correspondence is a simple but powerful way to improve consumer understanding and confidence.

Providing a direct link to clear, official guidance would:

• give motorists immediate access to a trusted, impartial source of information;
• reduce reliance on internet forums and unofficial sources, where misinformation is common;
• help ensure that consumers understand the difference between private charges and public penalties;
• explain their rights of appeal and what information they are (and are not) required to provide;
• make clear how processes differ in Scotland.

This measure would also improve transparency and reduce the imbalance of power between operators and motorists.

Appeals

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

Consumer Scotland has not undertaken a detailed review of specific issues with appeals to date, and our evidence base is therefore limited. We are aware, however, that private parking practices raise significant consumer concerns and that differences in the legal framework in Scotland compared to England and Wales may have important implications for how any policy or regulatory proposals operate in practice.

At this stage, we would note that there is a clear need for further assessment of consumer experiences, market practices, and legal enforceability in the Scottish context before firm conclusions can be drawn.

We would welcome the opportunity to engage further with Government and other stakeholders as this work develops, and we are actively considering this area as part of our future investigations pipeline.

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

Both the current appeals services (POPLA, operated on behalf of the BPA, and the Independent Appeals Service IAS, operated on behalf of the IPC) provide an important route for motorists to challenge private parking charges without the need for court action. These systems introduced greater structure and consistency into dispute resolution, and they ensure that operators are not the sole decision-makers in their own cases. POPLA’s administration by Ombudsman Services demonstrates that a measure of separation from the industry is possible, whereas the IAS’s use of legally qualified assessors highlights the value of professional expertise in decision-making.

That said, both systems face common challenges. Their industry links can create perceptions of bias, and transparency varies in how appeal outcomes are published and communicated. Processes also differ between the two schemes, which can cause confusion for motorists who expect a clear and consistent approach regardless of which operator issued the charge. These issues suggest that while both current schemes serve an important purpose, there is scope for improvement in terms of independence, accessibility, and consumer confidence.

A revised appeals service should build on the positive features of the current schemes, i.e., should be free or affordable access for motorists, impose binding decisions on operators, and include professional assessment of cases, while strengthening independence and transparency.

This would mean a single, fully independent appeals body, funded through a transparent, arm’s-length mechanism, with governance that includes consumer representation (including from Scotland, given the different legal framework). Publishing anonymised decisions, providing clear reasoning in plain language, and ensuring consistent processes would further improve confidence and fairness. Such a model would retain the operational benefits of the current system while addressing the need for a trusted, transparent, and consumer-focused service.

Additional comments

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 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?

Consumer Scotland welcomes the reintroduction of a Statutory Code of Practice for the private parking industry, and the opportunity this represents to bring greater consistency, fairness, and accountability into a sector that has historically been subject to alleged consumer detriment.

A clear and enforceable Code has the potential to protect motorists from unfair practices, improve transparency, and build confidence in the way private parking is managed.

However, concerns persist that the draft Code and consultation may not adequately reflect the distinct legal and enforcement context in Scotland. Important differences in the court system, contract law, prescription periods, and the absence of statutory keeper liability mean that Scottish consumers face different risks and challenges than those in England and Wales. Without explicit recognition and accounting for these differences, there is a risk that the Code could mislead motorists in Scotland or fail to provide the protections it is intended to deliver.

It is also important to recognise that private parking operators enjoy a unique privilege: access to DVLA registered keeper personal data, which motorists are legally required to provide to government authorities. This privileged access for private enterprise must carry with it the highest standards of fairness, propriety, and transparency in how that data is used to pursue charges. The Code must therefore be designed and enforced to reflect not only the legal framework but also the special responsibility that comes with using public data in a private enforcement context.

Consumer Scotland wishes to work closely with Government on the further development of the Code itself, the design of the Scrutiny and Oversight Board, and the production of clear, accessible guidance for motorists. Our goal is to ensure that these frameworks are not only robust in principle but effective in practice, particularly in protecting consumers in Scotland where the legal context is distinct.

We therefore look forward to collaborating constructively with Government, regulators, and industry stakeholders to address these gaps. Our aim is to ensure that the final Code is robust, fair, and fully responsive to the Scottish context, so that all consumers across the UK can benefit from a system that protects their rights, upholds transparency, and maintains public trust in both the parking sector and government data stewardship.

Minor clarifications/corrections to the withdrawn code

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]

Consumer Scotland agrees.

We note that the minor amendments set out in Annex A primarily relate to corrections of drafting errors, clarifications of definitions, and improvements in consistency of terminology within the Code. These amendments are sensible and will help to ensure that the Code is more precise, accessible, and legally robust.

Consumer Scotland agrees with the proposed changes on the basis that they improve clarity and do not alter the underlying protections or obligations. A Code that is clearly drafted, free of ambiguity, and consistent in terminology is critical to ensuring that motorists understand their rights and responsibilities, and that operators are held to a transparent and enforceable standard.

We would, however, emphasise that while these amendments are welcome, they should not be viewed as purely technical. Even small drafting choices can affect how the Code is applied in practice and how motorists interpret their rights. Consumer Scotland therefore recommends that Government continue to test the clarity of drafting (including with consumer advocacy bodies) to ensure that the Code is easily understandable for all motorists, including those in vulnerable circumstances.

Public sector equality duty

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?

[Yes/No/Don’t know]

Consumr Scotland response: Yes

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).

Consumer Scotland notes that the proposals have important implications for groups protected under the Equality Act 2010. In particular:

• Disabled motorists may be disproportionately affected if the Code does not ensure adequate consideration and grace periods, clear signage, and reliable payment systems. Disabled people may require additional time to access car parks, read and understand terms, and use payment machines or mobile apps.
  
  
• Older people may also be more likely to face difficulties with digital-only or complex payment systems, particularly where cashless technologies are unreliable or not user-friendly.
  
  
• Consumers with limited English, visual impairments, or cognitive conditions may struggle to understand unclear or overly technical signage, which risks unfair penalisation.
  
  
• Pregnant women and parents with young children may require additional time to enter or exit car parks safely and to comply with payment processes.
  

We therefore recommend that the Code should be reviewed through an equalities lens, with clear obligations on operators to make reasonable adjustments and design processes that are inclusive by default. Provisions around signage, consideration periods, payment methods, and appeals must all take account of the barriers that consumers with protected characteristics may face.

Consumer Scotland would welcome the opportunity to work with Government to ensure that equality impacts are fully understood and addressed in the design of the Code and in the supporting guidance for motorists.

Environmental principles policy statement

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

[Yes/No /Don’t know]

Consumer Scotland response: Yes

Question 36 (b): Please explain why.

Clearer rules, fairer grace periods, and more reliable payment systems could reduce unnecessary circulation and idling, supporting lower emissions and better use of EV charging points. Conversely, poorly designed or overly complex systems risk creating extra journeys, delays, and wasted fuel.

Consumer Scotland therefore recommends that the Code and supporting guidance explicitly encourage operators to design systems that minimise environmental harm  for example, by ensuring efficient traffic flow, supporting EV infrastructure, and offering low-carbon digital options that are reliable and inclusive. These considerations should form part of the wider scrutiny and oversight framework to ensure that the Code aligns with environmental as well as consumer protection goals.