Legal A government challenge BPA Lawlines Derek Millard-Smith reports on the recent Private Parking Code of Practice judicial review The parking-charge level and the debt-recovery fee must be fit for purpose to deter antisocial parking and to dissuade motorists from ignoring a parking charge altogether, causing the matter to escalate to the county court and potentially a CCJ s many of you will be aware, the Private Parking Code of Practice was published by the government on 7 February 2022. The codes objective was to formalise regulation of private parking operators by standardising many aspects of the industry such as signage, training and the appeals process as well as addressing parking-charge levels and the debt-recovery process and associated fees. While much of the code met the intentions of Sir Greg Knight and his original private parking bill, key elements of the code were, unfortunately, viewed as unworkable in practice by those involved in the parkingenforcement sector familiar with driver behaviours. To the lay person, reducing parking charges and outlawing debtrecovery fees appears a positive step, and possibly a vote winner. However, for landowners, hospitals and businesses providing parking, and those employed to manage their car parks, these aspects would bring about significant consumer and associated business detriment: the exact opposite of what was intended. We must not forget that the need for parking enforcement is generally brought about by motorists misusing private land. This misuse results in landowners needing to implement parking rules to protect their land and its appropriate use. A Getting it right It is accepted as an absolute that there must be robust mechanisms to prevent compliant motorists mistakenly getting parking charges, as well as 34 PN July 2022 pp34-35 Legal.indd 34 27/06/2022 12:57