A new government-backed Private Parking Code of Practice has been introduced in Parliament, promising to shield drivers from what Prime Minister Andy Burnham described as rip-off charges. The initiative seeks to establish clear standards for parking operators, though it has already drawn mixed reactions regarding its efficacy in curbing aggressive enforcement tactics. It’s being heard by an independent body, as opposed to the private parking operators and their trade bodies marking their own homework,” Cousens said, drivers need to have confidence that when they are making their representations.
The issue gained national attention through the case of Rosey Greenwood, who was pursued for £1,906 in charges after allegedly taking more than five minutes to pay at a Derby car park. Two years ago, Rosey was being told to pay £1,906 because she had taken too long to pay for parking. Rosey could not afford to pay £1,906 – she was due to get married and also saving up to buy her first home. Her fiance emailed and asked us to “shed some light” on what was happening, as she prepared to fight the case in court. This was how Rosey was asked to pay a total of £1,906 for 10 parking charges, and also how Hannah Robinson was asked to pay £11,390.
Greenwood, who had documented proof of her payments, faced relentless pressure from debt collectors while planning her wedding and saving for a home.
Recalling the ordeal, she said, “I was completely on edge, every single day.
I had letters coming through – I had debt collectors after me.
Her case was eventually highlighted in Parliament by Derby North MP Catherine Atkinson, leading to the case against her being dropped.
Under the proposed code, Housing and Communities Minister Florence Eshalomi stated that drivers would gain essential rights and protections. Key provisions include a mandatory five-minute consideration period for motorists to decide whether to park and a ten-minute grace period after parking sessions expire. Furthermore, the code caps standard parking charges at £100, which can be reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days, and mandates a reduction to £20 for certain administrative errors during appeals. External in which to leave a car park following the end of their permitted stay, the government’s code also gives drivers a 10-minute grace period. According to the government’s code, Charges should be reduced to £20 on appeal, external under four circumstances: not displaying a parking permit despite having a valid one, entering the wrong vehicle registration into a parking machine, not entering a registration at all, and not displaying a Blue Badge despite having one. According to the government code, Parking charges should be cancelled on appeal where the driver or a passenger in the vehicle suffers the onset of illness, where the driver or a passenger is delayed by an overrunning medical appointment, where the driver suffers delays due to childcare arrangements, and where a vehicle is broken down. According to the International Parking Community, “any changes must remain fair to motorists while staying workable. Alison Tooze, chief policy officer at the British Parking Association, said: “Overall, the code strikes the right balance between stronger protections for motorists and effective parking management, helping keep communities, businesses and local economies moving.
Critics, however, point out that much of the new framework mirrors existing industry guidelines already in place, raising questions about whether it will truly reduce the number of parking charge notices (PCNs) issued. For instance, the sector’s own code already includes five-minute consideration and ten-minute grace periods. Campaigners are particularly concerned about the ongoing allowance for operators to add £70 in debt recovery fees, which often causes initial charges to balloon into unmanageable debts. The five-minute payment rule – as stipulated on this sign – had already been banned by the parking sector itself. According to the government, It was “consulting as soon as possible next year on private parking debt recovery fees, including on whether to cut an existing £70 cap or scrap the fees altogether”.
Lynda Eagan, a campaigner who assisted Greenwood, remains unconvinced that the new rules offer substantive change. “They’ve tweaked a few things here and there, but it’s not actually going to make an awful lot of difference to people,” she noted, questioning how the current system will successfully curb the volume of penalties. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has rejected these criticisms, maintaining that significant improvements have been introduced to ensure fairer treatment for motorists. I’ve been screaming at the TV every time I see someone saying ‘we’ve got these new things’,” she said. I feel like our voices have been heard; fellow motorists like myself have been listened to,” she said.
Motoring organizations like the AA and RAC have welcomed the move toward a statutory code, citing the benefit of government oversight over private industry self-regulation. Jack Cousens, head of roads policy at the AA, noted that the industry previously held the power to alter its own code, whereas authority now rests with the government and an independent scrutiny board. Nonetheless, the AA continues to advocate for a single, independent appeals process and the total removal of add-on debt recovery fees. That means, if there are any changes to be made, it will come via the government and indeed via the independent scrutiny panel,” he added. Now the pen is firmly in the hand of the government.
The current proposal is undergoing a 40-day parliamentary review period, during which MPs and peers may file objections. If it passes without intervention, the code will officially take effect 21 calendar days after being issued. The government has pledged to consult further next year on the specific issue of private parking debt recovery fees, acknowledging the concerns raised by advocacy groups.
While operators who fail to comply with the new code risk losing access to crucial DVLA vehicle keeper data—a measure theoretically already in existence—campaigners argue that previous enforcement of these penalties has been ineffective. The government insists that this mechanism will be applied more strictly moving forward to ensure industry compliance. For survivors of the previous system like Greenwood, the hope remains that future drivers will be spared the fear and financial strain she endured. Helping ensure parking remains available for those who need it and enabling parking to be managed effectively,” she added, evidence shows that meaningful deterrents support compliance and good behaviours.
