Asked by Lord Lipsey To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans
they have to reintroduce the Private Parking Code of Practice for
private parking operators that was withdrawn in June 2022. Lord
Lipsey (Lab) My Lords, on 2 December last year I parked my car at
Abergavenny station, buying 14 days’ parking from the ticket
office. There was a train strike on the 16th, so I could not get
back on the right day, but I rang a number given by the ticket
office to...Request free trial
Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to
reintroduce the Private Parking Code of Practice for private
parking operators that was withdrawn in June 2022.
(Lab)
My Lords, on 2 December last year I parked my car at Abergavenny
station, buying 14 days’ parking from the ticket office. There
was a train strike on the 16th, so I could not get back on the
right day, but I rang a number given by the ticket office to
extend my stay by a fortnight. The phone message said it had been
extended, but when I returned to the car it had been ticketed by
APCOA, the operator.
What followed that experience will be familiar to many in your
Lordships’ House. Notices from the company fluttered down on me,
demanding payment. All used legal language; none pointed out the
simple fact that I cannot be made to pay without court action. My
“appeal” was turned down, but it was not an appeal in the normal
sense: it was an appeal to the company that had delivered the
fine in the first place—what a surprise it was turned down. It
passed my debt to a so-called debt enforcement agency. I
particularly enjoyed its note saying that it had not received a
reply from me and would therefore proceed to legal action, when
at no stage had these notices contained an address to which I
could reply. I had found other ways to write to it to say that it
was not getting a penny out of me without taking me to court.
I looked around the same car park the other day. Yes, there was a
notice by the spot I parked in; it was in Welsh. Yes, there was a
machine to pay at; however, it was covered in polythene that said
it was not in use any more. Yes, it said I could pay at the
ticket office, except that was not open—indeed, it may soon be
closed permanently. As an averagely intelligent person, I could
find no accessible way to pay. I therefore parked off-site and,
believe it or not, my car was towed away—a bad day for
Lipsey.
Of course, this may mean no more than that APCOA, the firm
concerned, is impossibly incompetent, but after this experience
and reading government documents and press coverage about these
companies, I am more inclined to believe in a conspiracy theory,
although I am not given to them. These companies have one object
and one object only, and that is to maximise the amount of money
they can make from charges. They make it either difficult or
impossible to pay, and they utter empty threats to bully the poor
motorist into coughing up, together with blandishments of reduced
charge if he or she does so. I understand that the company’s CEO
is a Mr Philippe Op de Beeck. Certainly, his skills and those of
his company would befit the mafia: Philippe, “capo dei capi”.
At this point in my speech, I would normally turn my attention to
what the Government have done. After 13 years in power, this kind
of abuse remains, so far as I can see, legal and unchecked. How
the Government manage to criticise my party, the Labour Party,
for being tough on motorists, when they allow this kind of abuse
to flourish, simply escapes me. I bet there are many more people
who are cross about the illegal parking charges levied by these
companies than about ULEZ.
Anyway, the Government did finally act: in February 2022 they
produced a draft code of practice. The parking companies behaved
exactly as you would expect the Mafia to behave: they threatened
judicial review, a kind of SLAPP action designed to deter the
Government from taking the action they were threatening to take.
And did the Government play the part of hero—one of those brave
cops who chased the Mafia down the streets of Salerno? No, of
course not. They threw in their hand, so actions such as APCOA’s
against me could go on extracting money from unsuspecting
motorists who had done absolutely nothing wrong.
This is a sad tale—particularly for me, but for many others who
have had similar experiences. However, in this case, I am
absolutely delighted to say that it may have a happy ending. In
July, the Government produced a new consultation document
designed to pave the way for a new code, not dissimilar to the
old one. The greedyguts of the parking industry will no doubt
continue to argue that any charge limits proposed are excessive
and make their trade uneconomic. You hear weepy tales of all the
poor parking attendants who will be made redundant if the charges
have to be reduced at all. Whether the code will deal with every
abuse the parkers now commit, we shall see.
I pray every night that APCOA carries out its threats and brings
a court action against me—a court action it will assuredly lose,
and with it such reputation as it may have. It would be a great
story for the pro-motorist press—the Daily Mail or the Express—to
report. Not only have I been able to study this subject, but I
had an excellent chat with the Minister last night and I thank
her for finding such a length of time for an appointment with a
Member of this House on what is probably not the most important
piece of business this week—although many people might disagree
with that. I am very grateful to her, and I think we saw eye to
eye.
I hope therefore that the Minister, when she rises, will confirm
that the Government really are determined to act, irrespective of
judicial reviews, that the parking industry, which has started to
realise that it cannot win this one at the end of the day, that
the public hates it and that its position is insupportable, will
realise that the game is up, and that ripped-off motorists
throughout the country will come to realise that they are not
powerless against their abusers—not while this Parliament exists
to stand up for them.
3.03pm
(Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, , on securing this debate. It
is, perhaps, a slightly strange moment to have it, being right in
the middle of the call for evidence to which he referred, which
closes on 8 October. We might have perhaps had the debate when we
had made a bit more progress, as he indicated—but so be it.
I remind your Lordships of my interests and inform your Lordships
of my employer.
(Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but my Motion was put
down long before the new document came out.
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. None the less, we
find ourselves in a very poorly attended debate for 90 minutes,
possibly due to its timing, which might have been deferred. So be
it.
I was drawing your Lordships’ attention to the fact that my
employer, Cavendish Financial, acts from time to time for clients
in the parking sector, but purely to offer corporate finance
advice and on no other matters. I first spoke on this subject in
the debate on my noble friend Lord Hunt’s private Bill, which
became the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 18 January
2019. I think that I am the only speaker from the Second Reading
of that Bill present today.
Very many people have an interest in parking. There are some 250
billion vehicle miles travelled in the UK every year, and,
interestingly, vehicle ownership has increased by 57% since 1994.
I do not accept the suggestion that this Government are
anti-motorist, particularly since the most egregious
anti-motorist act was taken by the Labour Mayor of London, . I was canvassing in Uxbridge
and South Ruislip and felt the degree of irritation that people
were, in effect, prohibited from driving their cars into central
London by the ULEZ charge.
I was motivated, in part, to speak in my noble friend Lord Hunt’s
debate because Westminster City Council had moved dramatically to
reduce the single yellow lines available in its borough and
increase the double yellow lines. My freedom of information
request revealed that, in one ward alone, some 433 metres of
single yellow lines had been lost to double yellow lines. It is
true that many people claim that the main benefit of being
elevated to the peerage is to have free parking in SW1. I am not
sure that that is entirely fair; none the less, many of us have a
strong interest in this matter.
In the debate on the Bill, we heard from its sponsor, my noble
friend , that there were a lot
of issues facing customers, relating largely to appeals, poor
signage and collection—as the noble Lord, , mentioned. The Bill received
widespread support from all sides of the House but was of course
challenged by a judicial review—which the parking operators are
more than entitled to do. While I certainly take some exception
to a British industry being described as a “mafia” when it is
carrying out regular, lawful business, I accept that the
challenge does not seem to have been handled well by the then
DHCLG. I gather that the officials were slightly out of their
depth and, as a result, we have been in abeyance. But there is a
call for evidence and I understand that discussions between the
new department and the industry have taken place as recently as
this week.
So the implementation of the private parking code of practice has
stalled, primarily due to the proposed imposition of a reduction
in the value of parking charges and the removal of debt recovery
fees, without any impact assessment being carried out. DLUHC, as
it is now called, has claimed that the increase in the number of
parking charges issued over the past decade is indicative of a
system that is inherently unfair and not fit for purpose. It is
seeking to reduce the number of charges issued and to see more
people being able to park with peace of mind. However, its
proposal to reduce the deterrent value of a parking charge is
counterintuitive; it is more likely to lead to an increase in
abuse, reducing the available parking for compliant motorists who
do the right thing.
DLUHC also proposed a ban on debt recovery fees, on the grounds
that they were not fair, and related that to the fact that
motorists who pay the debt recovery fee were contributing to
unrecovered costs from motorists who do not pay. That would
appear to be the norm across a number of sectors and most
industries, certainly including all the retail sector; the
difference between the parking sector and a standard business is
that the cost of parking enforcement tends to be borne by the
non-compliant motorists and not the compliant motorists. So the
bone of contention seems to be about the amounts that can be
charged and debt collection.
On the amounts to be charged, clearly if they are too low, they
will not be a deterrent. At the moment, only 0.27% of parking
events led to a PCN, suggesting that the deterrent is high enough
to bite. As I understand it, the industry is, in principle, in
agreement. The majority of the rest of the code and the trade
associations are aligning their codes with the single code, where
practicable and, hopefully, with a view to early adoption.
The rest of the code will continue to drive professionalism and
improve standards while codifying minimum standards across the
sector and adding layers of external oversight. It would be a
win-win if the two contentious and unjustified points were
removed from the code and the rest was immediately adopted. There
is scope for the value of parking charges and debt recovery fees
to be reviewed by the scrutiny and oversight board after the code
is implemented and its effect properly considered and
reviewed.
The code of practice talks about charges as low as £50, dropping
to £25 outside of London. Let us think about this. If four people
share a car and take it to, say, a railway station and park
illegally, would they think it too painful to share a £25 charge
for the car to be left somewhere that could inconvenience their
fellow citizens? Even in London, £80 falling to £40 means that
there would not be enough bite; even TfL recognises this and has
just increased its deterrent from £130 to £160.
As for the comments of the noble Lord, , about the charges being
unpopular, 81% of respondents to a DHCLG consultation undertaken
earlier were in favour of charges of at least £80 and even £100
or £120. The current proposals represent a 58% reduction in
deterrent for most common breaches outside London. For some
reason, charges by local authority councils outside London are
set by His Majesty’s Government but not in London. I have no idea
why; perhaps my noble friend the Minister can explain it. Of
course, with inflation, the £100 set in 2012 should really be
£137 now.
Parking fines affect only a small proportion of motorists and
businesses—in particular retailers, who need motorists to feel
encouraged to come to shop and carry goods home with them
easily.
Finally, I mention APCOA, which the noble Lord, , referenced, in respect of one
specific matter: Heathrow. It is not exactly a parking charge but
it is in lieu of one that, when one goes to Heathrow, one has to
pay a £5 penalty for visiting. I do not object to that in
principle but I object to the method by which payment is
required, which is that one has to go to a website, enter details
then hope that it has been processed properly on the basis that
you know if it has been but you do not know if it has not. I
suggest to my noble friend the Minister that an idea might be to
require Heathrow and other airports to have a tap machine that,
as one passes, pays the £5 charge, thus negating the necessity of
having to go to a website. Most people are slightly stressed when
travelling to an airport and have other things on their mind. It
would be great if regulation were brought in to make that payment
simpler.
Let us hope that common sense prevails and that the code is
brought in with sensible levels as soon as possible.
3.12pm
(Lab)
I thank my noble friend for bringing this short debate
to your Lordships’ House. I think he was rather kind to the car
parking companies because he has to listen to what some people
out there actually think about them.
Anyway, there are 40 million cars on the road. Most drivers are
responsible but some of them park illegally and get fined; I and
my wife were fined once. Responsibility also lies with the car
parking company, which sometimes cuts corners with signs and
tries to entrap innocent, unsuspecting drivers with the latest
sophisticated CCTV—more about that later.
Over the years, I have run all kinds of businesses, including
shops, cafés, car parks and so on. The car parking business is
one of the least labour-intensive businesses because of the
latest technology. These days, every time I pay my car parking
fee, I hardly ever see anyone walking around with a yellow jacket
like we used to all those years ago. Last year, the car parking
industry told the Government that, if they introduced a new code
of practice, it would lose thousands of jobs. I disagree. The car
parking business is a cash cow. Compared to other businesses, it
has far fewer workers yet it is far more profitable. The
industry’s threat of job losses if the Government did not
introduce a statutory code does not stack up.
This is an industry worth more than £3 billion. There are well
over than 40 million cars on the road. The public need to park
somewhere when they go about their business. They need assurance
that they are getting value for money when they pay for car
parking. I do not know of any other industry that is so big and
yet is not properly regulated. The Government should introduce a
statutory code of practice as soon as possible. Furthermore,
there should be an ombudsman to oversee any dispute relating to
fines or pricing, like Ofgem and Ofcom. Perhaps it should be
called Ofpark and be financed by the parking industry.
I want the Government to take note of this point. Designated car
parks, such as those operated by NPC or in a hospital or at an
airport, are clearly proper car parks with payment required at
the entrance or exit. During the past 10, 15 or 20 years, we have
seen the advent of very clever CCTV cameras. They are now
everywhere. They are on private land belonging to pubs,
supermarkets—any location you can think of. The cameras are
looking and waiting to catch drivers out. Most drivers know they
are there and take precautions, either paying or leaving their
number in the computer inside the shop or supermarket.
The signage is the problem. Signs are 60 centimetres by 80
centimetres, mostly tucked away somewhere in a corner, in the
dark or covered in dust. They inform drivers that, if they do not
pay, they will be fined. Some people get caught out. A few days
later, a letter arrives with a photograph of your car number
plate and threatening legal language saying that, if you do not
pay up, you will be taken to court. Most drivers pay up because
they cannot be bothered to appeal or go to court, which is
time-consuming and can mean taking time off work. This is what
happens. It is nothing more than a page out of Del Boy’s book of
money-making scams: “Come on, Rodney. Let’s stick a few of these
clever CCTV cameras here and there, give a certain percentage to
the owners and keep the rest. Lovely Jubbly!”
I am not disputing the ownership of the land, the owners’ rights
or the legality of the practice. It is just the sneaky way in
which they try to do this to the motorist. As I said, the problem
is about signage. Signs are not clear; they are confusing and
misleading. Some innocent, unsuspecting drivers sometimes get
caught out. The people who put up the CCTV know the score. The
reaction of most drivers on getting one of these letters is, “Oh,
I didn’t know there was a CCTV camera. If I had known, I would
have done something”.
In introducing a new statutory code, the Government should make
it clear that signs in these particular types of car park should
be much bigger and displayed clearly on all sides of the car
park—at the front, at the back and so on. There should not just
be a 60-centimetre by 80-centimetre sign obscurely tucked away in
the corner where people can hardly see it. It should be written
on the road as well so that, when a driver enters this particular
place, they know what will happen if they do not pay up.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has
accepted that this practice by a small number of cowboy companies
is unacceptable. DVLA data estimate that, between 2022 and 2023,
more than 2.8 million drivers will be fined. In recent years, the
number of car parking companies has grown expeditiously because
there is easy money in it.
The AA has said that:
“Private parking companies are acting like pirates, plundering
innocent drivers”.
The RAC Foundation said that parking companies were booming like
the “Wild West”. I have here some other examples from newspapers.
A lady was fined £100 for being 21 seconds over the—
(Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly within his time limit; I
just encourage him not to use props in the Chamber.
(Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for reminding me. I did think that I still
had three minutes left.
The Government need to introduce a statutory code for the parking
industry as soon as possible, to sort out the fines and so on.
Also, the Government might be aware that, in some local
authorities, you can only pay via an app. If you do not have a
phone on you or do not know how to use the app, you are in
trouble. Perhaps the Government can look at that as well.
I have a lot more examples, but I had better take it easy—I thank
the noble Lord for his intervention. I appreciate it.
3.20pm
(LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the indulgence of the House in
allowing me to speak in the gap.
I thought that we had tamed the worst excesses of parking
operators with the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012, but clearly that is not so. In some ways, these problems
were unforeseen at that time because, as we increasingly pay by
app and by debit and credit card, it becomes the case that the
more technology that there is the more technology there is to go
wrong.
I want very briefly to bring to the Minister’s attention a recent
complaint that came my way about a station car park. I do not
expect her to be able to answer at this moment, but I hope that
the issue will be considered. For Northallerton car park, you
must register on the APCOA site. It seems that you must pay a £1
fee to a company called Alltainment, which appears to be linked
to the apcoaconnect website, although Alltainment appears to be a
digital entertainment site. The complainant who came to me said
that the site tried to take £39.99 from her credit card, until
her bank intervened to urge caution. What is the link between
APCOA and this apparently related company? Why are the operators
of station car parks operating in such an apparently dubious
manner?
In this case, to add insult to injury, when the complainant tried
to get on to the website to complain and to set up the system
again, the website told her that there were no car parks to be
found at Northallerton station, despite the fact that she was
standing in one and had parked her car in one and the signs were
all around her to say that one existed. That level of
inefficiency causes huge frustration among the public. I would be
grateful if the Minister could, in time, respond to me in writing
about this issue.
3.24pm
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for a very timely debate—which
reminds us that this important issue is still outstanding
business—and for his very colourful introduction. As ever, I
thank our Library for the thorough and helpful briefing on this
subject. As a council leader until very recently, I am afraid
that parking is one of the subjects guaranteed to make my blood
run cold and the mention of double or single yellow lines by the
noble Lord, Lord Leigh, did nothing to help that feeling.
Of course, the difference between local authority parking
proposals and those from the private sector is that local
authority-run schemes generally recycle both the parking charges
and the fines for breaching them to improve the local area. But
whether parking schemes are operated by local authorities or the
private sector, they have a tricky balance to strike between
ensuring that parking is available and managed well, keeping our
roads passable and having reasonable enforcement processes that
will dissuade irresponsible parking.
The code was introduced to tackle some of the very sharp
practices of some operators that were becoming notorious as their
operations expanded. The figures for the proliferation of private
parking schemes are eye-watering, as are the increases in the
number of tickets issued. Parking fees amounted to an estimated
£2.62 billion in 2021-22, a figure which has doubled since
2017-18, so the companies’ plea of poverty has a bit of hollow
ring. There were 8.6 million parking tickets issued last
year—about 23,000 a day.
The introduction of the code in 2022 was widely welcomed by
motorists and the organisations representing them. It enshrined
the common-sense practices and transparency that they wanted to
see and was a relatively modest ask of the private parking
sector. Who would not want to see better signage and marking,
clarity on ticketing and payment, clarity on how unpaid charges
are dealt with and the level of fines, and professional standards
about complaints handling? When the code was “temporarily”
withdrawn following legal challenges in June 2022, the Government
undertook to carry out the impact assessment and consultation
that was needed before Summer Recess this year.
When the code was withdrawn, a DfT spokesperson said:
“We’re determined to end rip-off parking practices, and it’s very
disappointing that … the parking industry are resisting
this”.
However, now we discover that, far from the code being
reintroduced in July 2023, the call for evidence was issued only
on 30 July—a year after the code had been withdrawn—with a
closure date of 8 October, and that needs to be followed by the
impact assessment. What is the reason for a delay of a whole
year?
One of the complaints of the parking industry was that the
introduction of the code would result in the loss of over 3,000
jobs. Can the Minister tell us whether the department has asked
to see the workings of this assertion? Has it carried out its own
assessment of how accurate that is? My noble friend raised the point that much of
the monitoring and operations are now carried out using
electronic surveillance, so can we get clarify whether the 3,000
jobs figure is accurate? Can the Minister reassure motorists that
the Government still intend to deal with all issues arising from
the previous practices of private parking companies by the use of
a strong code of practice combined with enforceable measures on
those companies which do not comply?
It seems that some elements in the private parking industry have
been unwilling to use, as they could have done, all or part of
the code as a set of voluntary guidelines during its suspension.
That might have helped convince us of their willingness to adapt
to some consumer pressure in this area. They have taken the
suspension as an opportunity to carry on just as they were or—as
in the worrying case set out by the noble Baroness, Lady
Randerson—have actually got worse. Can the Minister tell us how
we can support motorists to know where they are with private
parking fines, as so many people are now having to carry out
their own appeals on matters that would have been covered were
the code in place? How quickly do the Government expect to be
able to carry out the impact assessment after the call for
evidence closes? I suppose the key question here is: just when do
we expect to be able to reintroduce this important code of
practice?
Nicholas Lyes, the RAC’s head of roads policy, said when the code
was withdrawn:
“The fact that parking companies take issue with the capping of
charge notices and debt recovery fees shows precisely why both
the code and the cap are needed. For too long, some companies
have been allowed to prey mercilessly on drivers who might make
an honest mistake and then have to face both over-zealous
enforcement and threatening debt recovery letters. The Government
must stand up to these companies and get the code over the line
so we finally have fair and transparent enforcement in the
private parking sector”.
His comments were very much supported by the fellow organisation,
the AA.
While none of us has any sympathy with irresponsible,
inconsiderate or dangerous parking, too often we are not talking
about any of those. The latest case I heard was of someone who
stopped at a local shopping centre—it was in Flitwick, which
might indicate why they were there—which had a pub restaurant,
for a lunchtime meal. The pub was very busy and took so long to
serve them that they eventually cancelled their order and left
the car park just five minutes after the allotted parking time.
Incidentally, it was so badly signed that the complainant had not
been able to find any sign indicating the parking restrictions.
Just a few days later, they received a fine of £100 from the
private parking company. It is no wonder people get
infuriated.
Please can we get this code back in place as quickly as possible
to ensure that private parking is fair and transparent to
motorists?
3.30pm
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord, , for bringing forward this
important debate and other noble Lords for their considered and
insightful contributions. It is fair to say that there are a lot
of stories out there. I am sorry to hear about those experiences
and, after preparing for this over the last few days, I am sure
that everyone has a story. It seems to be a widespread issue to
which everyone can relate. I am sorry that such stories are not
rare. I assure all noble Lords that the Government remain
committed to implementing the private parking code of practice as
soon as we can.
Parking is a crucial part of our transport infrastructure; we all
have an interest in how car parks are managed, especially given
the important link between transport accessibility and the
vitality of our high streets and town centres. There are good
private parking operators delivering this crucial service. As was
referred to, most times people park it is hassle free and does
not result in any grievances. However, from public
correspondence, the interventions we have just heard, news media
reports and various consumer and motoring group campaigns, we
know that poor practices are persistent within the private
parking industry. Rest assured, the Government are committed to
reintroducing the code of practice to ensure fairness for
drivers, vehicle keepers and landowners.
Examples of poor practice range from confusing instructions on
signage, which many noble Lords referred to, to the use of
intimidating and pseudo-legal language in the enforcement of
parking charges to the opaque appeal processes that were referred
to by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey—I suspect that the noble
Baroness, Lady Randerson, and I would be able to help the noble
Lord with the Welsh signage, but it is not fair that he did not
understand the requirements of those parking restrictions.
There are reasons why the code was drafted and introduced. Data
on parking charges are still not collated and centrally held, but
I understand that the number of parking charges issued is getting
larger and can have significant impacts on individuals and
businesses. This lack of central data is being addressed.
However, DVLA data on the number of requests made by private
parking operators for registered vehicle keeper data provides a
proxy for the volume of parking charges issued. As was mentioned
by a few speakers, in 2019—which is the latest year for which I
have data—private parking operators made over 8 million requests
to the DVLA. That represents a significant increase from the 2012
figures, which were about 2 million. As was referred to by the
noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, 2012 was when the Protection of
Freedoms Act banned clamping and introduced keeper liability.
As others have mentioned, the significant increase in the number
of parking charges issued is not in line with the increase in the
number cars or indeed the demand for parking. We know that the
increasing number of parking charges has negative impacts not
only on motorists but on parking operators and landowners too.
Non-compliance with parking restrictions can have adverse
consequences for access to businesses, while motorists of course
face financial penalties and, potentially, county court
judgments.
That is why we developed the code following Royal Assent of the
Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. The code of practice and the
enforcement framework seek to meet three key objectives: to
create consistency across the parking system and raise standards,
to ensure fairness for drivers and registered vehicle keepers,
and to increase transparency in the way the private parking
industry operates. In doing so, the code seeks to tighten
obligations on private parking managers to ensure—as just
requested by the noble Lord, Lord Sahota—that signs at the
entrance to and within the premises are designed and located so
they are clearly visible and convey all the information drivers
need to see.
The code seeks to standardise requirements for consideration and
grace periods. It also tries to raise standards for complaints
and appeal handling, including the introduction of a requirement
to consider mitigating circumstances and an ability to cancel
parking charges in certain prescribed circumstances. It also
prohibits misleading or intimidating language in car park charges
or debt recovery notices.
The two controversial measures are introducing new parking charge
levels that are proportionate to the seriousness of the
contravention, and introducing new debt recovery fee limits or
potentially banning them altogether. As noble Lords know, the
code was laid in Parliament in February 2022. However, shortly
after its introduction, a number of private parking operators,
and indeed debt recovery agencies, initiated a judicial review
proceeding into the Government’s decision to introduce within the
code new levels of private parking charges and to ban debt
recovery fees. It was accepted that the original processes,
unfortunately, were not adequate with respect to the impact
assessment conducted prior to the introduction of the code. The
Government therefore decided to concede those challenges and
temporarily withdraw the code to ensure that its impacts were
rigorously examined. Failing to do so would open us up to further
challenges and could ultimately set us back further. I recognise
that the setback is frustrating but, as we know, a further
judicial review is possible and therefore we cannot cut corners.
I hope noble Lords will recognise the need for this and we remain
totally committed to delivering the code of practice.
While developing the new impact assessment, the Government have
engaged with a range of relevant groups, including consumer
representatives, parking trade associations and representatives
from private parking operators and debt recovery agencies. To
ensure the decisions are as well informed as they can be, we
decided to publish the draft impact assessment to test the
initial assumptions and run a formal call for evidence alongside
it, to give all stakeholders an opportunity to provide relevant
evidence.
My noble friend Lord Leigh referred to the parking charges
element of this. We are of course considering the level of
parking charges. My noble friend is right to highlight the
importance of an effective deterrent. We are trying to find
further evidence to demonstrate how effective or otherwise the
deterrent would be with each option to inform the decisions on
these matters.
This call for evidence, which closes on 8 October, is a key
moment. I encourage those who have evidence that supports or
contradicts our current understanding to come forward to help
develop the options. I recognise that this creates another delay,
but it is a necessary delay to demonstrate that an informed and
evidenced decision is being taken on these elements of the code.
The Government are taking a genuinely open approach to these
decisions, and without knowing what the outcomes of our current
call for evidence will be, unfortunately I cannot give the noble
Baroness, Lady Taylor, a specific date for when the code will
come.
We know that, following the call for evidence, we will publish a
new impact assessment, which will need to be subject to further
public consultation, on the options for parking charges and debt
recovery fees.
In conclusion, I hope that the recent publication of the draft
impact assessment, albeit slightly later than expected, and the
call for evidence demonstrate that not only are the Government
committed to publishing the code but keen to make sure that the
measures set out in this new code work and stand up to legal
challenge. The draft impact assessment estimates that, should we
do nothing to improve the sector, parking charges will continue
to rise. The estimates we have seen are that, by 2033, private
parking operators will issue over 12 million charges a year. The
Government are therefore working to try to stop this from
happening.
I will look into the specific case of Northallerton car park on
behalf of the noble Baroness and will respond in writing when I
have spoken to the department about the specifics. I thank the
noble Lord, , for bringing forward this
debate and all noble Lords for their contributions. The
Government look forward to continuing discussions on this
important topic and delivering the expected results.
|
