Private parking providers are under a lot of scrutiny right now. The government has opened a consultation that could change the way private parking fines are issued – and Downing Street been polling drivers for their experiences. But we wanted to go one step further.
Earlier this year, we appealed for your help. We launched an investigation to find out how many of our readers had been slapped with unfair private parking charges – and the results are finally in.
Around 74% of Parkers readers who responded to our survey said they’d been handed at least one Parking Charge Notice (PCN) between January 2024 and January 2025. Of those, a staggering 90% of believed they’d been unfairly charged, citing issues such as faulty on-site technology, overly complicated (or completely hidden) terms and conditions and dishonest application of the controversial ‘five-minute rule’ as the reason for their PCN.
Your responses also reveal the UK’s private parking sector likes to operate in the murky grey area of the rules imposed on them by their trade bodies, which is surprising considering how trustworthy the British Parking Association (BPA) insists its members are.
You told us the UK’s private car parking firms are quick to issue PCNs, they don’t always display their terms and conditions openly, they seldom explain their charges clearly and they employ heavy-handed negotiation tactics when chasing drivers for money.
Scroll down to read all the results. We’ve got data on the reasons for your PCNs, the party at fault, the cost of the charges, the clarity of the car parks’ terms and conditions, how easy the car parks’ payment machines were to use and the way the parking company conducted itself once you tried to appeal.
What were the reasons for your PCNs?
Varied, as the chart below shows. Almost 23% of respondents were issued a PCN due to a malfunction with the parking company’s technology, such as its ANPR cameras or ticket machines – even in cases where the driver had paid for the right to use the car park.
A further 10% of respondents didn’t park at all but, because they spent five minutes crawling around the car park looking for a space, the car park booked them under the controversial five-minute rule. Thankfully, this rule has since been overturned by the new Private Parking Scrutiny and Advice Panel, so these cases should cease to exist.
Unclear terms and conditions have also been catching drivers out, with 12% of readers attributing their PCNs to poorly placed or confusingly worded signage. Drivers report how crucial information, such as maximum stay limits or payment responsibilities for disabled motorists, are often printed in much smaller font at the bottom of the sign in.
To strengthen this data, we polled you for your opinions on the fairness of the car parks’ contracts and technology. More than 50% of respondents said they felt the car parks’ terms and conditions weren’t displayed clearly – and 56% of drivers said they felt the payment machines were too complicated to use. The chart displaying the data related to the payment machines is displayed below:
Other common reasons for your PCNs include overstaying (14.5%), parking outside of a bay (13%) and misusing the car park’s payment equipment (6%). This quantitative data only tells part of the story, however, so we asked you for further qualitative information about your PCNs to provide context to each case.
A few drivers who overstayed reported they’d been issued a PCN for spending less than five minutes over their allocated time in the car park. That’s against the rules set out by the BPA’s Single Code of Practice, which states drivers should be granted a 10-minute ‘grace period’ at the end of any parking event over 30 minutes. During that grace period, providing they’ve paid the correct fare, a driver can’t be issued with a PCN.
Who’s at fault?
Our data is split into two categories – clear-cut cases where either the driver or the parking provider is at fault and messier claims in which both parties are at fault. For the clear-cut cases, the blame can be apportioned equally between the parking providers (38%) and the drivers (42%). The chart below illustrates the data.
It’s worth noting that, to arrive at these figures, we assessed our data using the rules set out by the BPA’s Single Code of Practice. Turns out, it’s rather draconian. So, if you contravene any of the terms laid out by the car park’s signage (such as parking outside of the line or overstaying your permitted time onsite excluding any ‘grace period’), the car park is within its right to issue you with a PCN, even if the ruling appears unfair.
There are cases in our data that suggest some private parking companies are taking advantage of this rule to issue unfair charges. For example, one respondent reported how he was issued a PCN for stopping in a no-stop zone in an airport car park to ask a site security representative for directions.
Because the car park prohibited stopping there, the gentleman is technically at fault. However, the parking provider is acting rather hypocritically because the chap also told us the car park’s own security representative was parked in the no-stop zone in his van. That means he had no choice but to stop there to get directions.
It could also be construed that the car parking provider has broken the terms of the BPA’s Single Code of Practice in this specific case. Section F.1, paragraph g) of the code states a vehicle should not be issued with a PCN when ‘paused on a private road network simply because the driver needs to check directions.’
Cases in which both parties are at fault account for 17% of respondents. This category covers cases of misleading or unclear signage, and technically correct but morally wrong PCNs. They make for difficult reading, because some show evidence of deliberately underhanded business practices.
One respondent told us how he was sent a PCN from his local hospital car park for overstaying, despite the fact he couldn’t extend his parking because he was undergoing a procedure that overrun. He appealed his case to explain the situation, but it was rejected by the parking provider. To make matters worse, the BPA’s Single Code of Practice has a dedicated set of guidelines that compensates for mitigating circumstances such as overrun medical appointments, which the company ignored.
How expensive were your PCNs?
Rather troublingly, they didn’t all conform to the BPA’s Single Code of Practice. The code sets out some very specific guidelines on how expensive Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) should be. Section 8.2 clearly states:
8.2.1 Parking charges must not exceed £100
8.2.2 A reduction of a minimum of 40% must be offered where payment is made within 14 days of the issue of the notice […]
8.2.3 Where the parking tariff exceeds the discounted amount of the charge for breaching the terms of parking, the full payment of the tariff may be pursued and up to an additional £60 may be added to the unpaid tariff
There are plenty of private parking companies who are comfortable with overlooking these rules. Our data shows 90% of respondents received a 14-day discounted PCN of £60, meaning 10% of respondents were threatened with PCNs outside of the code’s guidelines. The most unfortunate driver in our study was initially invoiced £200.
The non-discounted PCN rates once the initial 14-day period has elapsed sway even further from the BPA’s guidelines. The chart below shows just 56% of drivers had full-price PCNs at the maximum permissible charge of £100, while 36% were asked to pay £120 or more.
12% of respondents charged with PCNs of more than £170 which, again, falls outside the terms of paragraph 8.2.3 of the code. The worst affected driver was sent a PCN for £570 – and he didn’t even park. He only spent a slightly longer than he should have in an airport drop-off zone.
How many drivers appealed their PCNs?
Just 64% of those who had been issued a PCN said they tried appealing it. Of those, only 19% were successful and, frustratingly, more than half of the appeals were handled by automated systems rather than humans. Taking to a computer makes it much more difficult to argue your case.
Respondents were also unhappy with how the car parks’ representatives conduct themselves in their correspondence. An overwhelming majority of our readers said the letters, emails and phone calls they received from parking providers were aggressive and confrontational, as illustrated by the chart below:
This sentiment is reinforced by the qualitative data we gathered on each case. Respondents described the companies’ language as ‘intimidating’ and ‘threatening’ – and they claimed the parking firms that issued them PCNs were quick to threaten them with debt collection agencies if they didn’t pay promptly.
What can you do to avoid a PCN?
The best advice we can offer is to read the car parks’ terms and conditions before committing to parking there – especially if you’re a blue badge holder.
Private car parking companies can offer free parking to disabled drivers, but they’re under no obligation to. This survey showed us just how much the rules can vary between providers – and how often those discrepancies have caught Parkers readers out.
Also, don’t give the parking company any excuse to book you. Our survey has proved the wardens and technology monitoring private car parks can be utterly ruthless. Make sure you park entirely within your bay and do your best not to overstay your allocated time.
What can you do if you receive an unfair PCN?
Don’t automatically pay it and don’t be afraid to appeal it. The fact that just 64% of our respondents challenged their PCNs, despite 90% believing they’d been issued it unfairly is concerning – and we hope this study has given the confidence you need to fight back.
Don’t be intimidated. Private parking companies use aggressive language to scare you into paying – but they have no right to ‘fine’ you, no matter how much they try to convince you otherwise. Remember, fines are handed out for criminal acts, but a Parking Charge Notice issued by a private parking provider is a civil matter. In essence, the provider is issuing you with an invoice for your alleged breach of the contract outlined on its signage.
If you’re gearing up for an appeal, here are some top tips to strengthen your case:
- Gather evidence: get photos of the car parks’ terms and conditions and check to see whether you’ve actually broken them. If you have evidence that you’ve paid for your parking (such as a receipt, valid ticket or bank transaction) send a copy to the provider as part of your appeal. Also, send evidence of any mitigating circumstances such as overrun doctor’s appointments.
- Do your homework: make sure the parking provider is a registered member of one of the UK’s parking trade bodies. There are only two – the British Parking Association (BPA) and the Internation Parking Community (IPC). That’ll dictate your next steps for an appeal:
- If the provider is a registered member of a parking trade body, follow the trade body’s official appeal process when making your claim.
- If the provider isn’t a registered member of a parking trade body, simply get in touch with them directly and tell them you aren’t paying. They have no trade body to back them up, which significantly weakens their case.
- Make sure the provider has stuck to its code of practice: if the parking provider is a member of a trade body, they’ll have a specific set of rules they need to adhere to. If you have reason to believe they’ve broken their trade body’s code of practice, dig through the document and find the rule they’ve flouted. Then, chuck it back at the provider as ammunition when making your appeal.
Conclusion
The data in this study shows there are plenty of improvements yet to make in the UK’s private car parking sector, which we urge both the government and the Private Parking Scrutiny and Advice Panel to rectify over the coming months.
The most pressing matter we’d like to see remedied is the unreliability of on-site private car park technology. Our data shows 23% of our respondents’ PCNs were wrongly issued due to a fault with either the car park’s ANPR cameras or payment machines. It also shows more than 50% of drivers feel the payment machines are too complicated to operate.
We’d also like to see a reform for on-site car park signage. A clearer, standardised means of presenting private car park terms and conditions is needed to avoid confusing motorists. Our data shows more than 50% of drivers feel the signage is difficult to understand.
Lastly, we’d like to see a change to the way private car parking companies deal with their customers. In almost all the cases we analysed in which the driver was technically at fault, the breach in agreement was through a genuine mistake rather than an act of malice.
An overwhelming majority of Parkers readers said they felt the parking company was too confrontational in their correspondence. So, we’d also like to see a reformed invoice template for all PCNs that removes this threatening language and a fairer, more lenient attitude from parking companies for matters that are outside the driver’s control.
As mentioned above, a Parking Charge Notice is not a criminal offence. It is a civil matter concerning a breach of contract – and the notice you receive is nothing more than an invoice. As such, if you feel you’ve been invoiced unfairly, you’re within your right to challenge it, just as you would if you’d been overcharged in a high street shop.
We sincerely hope the government and the Private Parking Scrutiny and Advice Panel takes our readers’ experiences on board and adjusts the sector’s guidelines to improve standards.
Just so you know, we may receive a commission or other compensation from the links on this website - read why you should trust us.
