Legal Justified decision or politics at play? Derek Millard-Smith and Nadia Belkacemi consider the MHCLG parking charges consultation decision he Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) recently consulted on new measures to improve the regulation of the private parking industry. On 20 March 2021, the Parking code enforcement framework: consultation response (the Consultation Response) was published. To the dismay of the parking management sector and the landowners and institutions they serve, this proposes to introduce a new system under which charges for private parking will mirror the local authority (LA) charging structure (the LA Mirror Decision). Those of us immersed in parking management understand too well that this approach will simply not work, resulting in many unintended consequences rather than, as the MHCLG intended, simplifying parking for all. It is of great concern to all affected stakeholders that, if the MHCLG proposals are implemented, the resulting parking environment will see: Higher and more tariff charges for responsible motorists More parking charges being issued because previously responsible motorists will choose to break the rules for convenience as a result of the consequences becoming affordable The commercial realities restrict responsible parking operators from operating, and desperate landowners whose land is being abused turning to rogue operators who will act outside the Code of Practice. T Effective deterrent One key concept highlighted by the LA Mirror Decision is the importance of an effective deterrent, especially for private parking operators. The landmark case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2016] [2015] UKSC 67 (Beavis) regarded deterrence as necessary for efficient car park management. Beavis also commented in detail on how the local authority system does not, and cannot, translate onto private land because of multiple differences between the applicable regimes and associated enforcement powers. Beavis, in 2015, was about contractual penalty clauses The LA Mirror Decision runs contrary to: The consultation response that overwhelmingly dismissed the LA system The fact that the LA system does not deliver effective parking enforcement Confirmation, by the Supreme Court, of the LA system being unsuitable for application on private land. As such, it is impossible to understand how an appropriately conducted consultation by government, acting rationally and with all due diligence, could have come to the LA Mirror Decision. While the accredited trade associations (ATAs) will try to continue to work with the MHCLG, the latter has made it clear, quite remarkably, that it would prefer to adopt a suck it and see approach, implement, and then assess the impact in two years. That reckless position has left the sector with no choice but to initiate the judicial review pre-action process, an application that is supported by a majority of national parking operators from across the industry, landowners, and UK-based suppliers to the sector. 32 britishparking.co.uk PN May 2021 pp32-33 Legal.indd 32 22/04/2021 13:27