Private Parking - September 2026

Watchdog has heard from drivers who say they have been unfairly charged by private parking companies in what they say are circumstances where the industry’s own Code of Practice says you shouldn’t be, and have faced difficulties when trying to appeal.

John was driving home to Durham with his wife Judy, who has Parkinson’s, when she suddenly became unwell. John pulled into the first place he could find, a hotel car park, where he gave Judy medication and waited until she was feeling well enough to continue their journey. A few days later, John received a £100 Parking Charge Notice from Parking Eye for a 15-minute unauthorised stay.

The industry’s Code of Practice recognises a medical emergency as a valid reason for an appeal. John appealed, explaining what had happened, but his appeal was rejected because he was told there wasn’t enough evidence. John took his case to POPLA, the independent appeals’ service, and provided an NHS letter outlining Judy’s condition. His appeal was again rejected and he eventually paid the £100 charge.

Liz, from Salisbury, pulled into a car park for just 90 seconds to return her crying granddaughter’s dummy. The Code of Practice allows drivers a five-minute consideration period to decide whether to park or not. Despite this, Liz received a £100 charge and her appeal was rejected.

The Code of Practice also says drivers should be given a ten-minute grace period at the end of a paid parking session. Sophie was charged after overstaying by exactly ten minutes in North London. Her appeal was rejected.

Carita was charged £100 for failing to pay for parking. She argued that there was no entrance sign at the car park, despite the Code of Practice requiring one. The parking company provided a photograph which it said showed there was a sign. However, the photograph appeared to date from 2023. Carita provided a more recent photograph showing no sign, but her appeal was rejected.

We wrote to the British Parking Association about John’s case. It said that, following a review, it had concluded that the Code of Practice had been followed.

However, Parking Eye told us that after reviewing additional evidence that it has now cancelled the charge.

POPLA said it rejected John’s appeal because in its view, he could have paid for parking, but appreciated that paying for parking would have been the last thing on his mind and noted that the operator had now cancelled the charge.

As for the IPC, it said it takes compliance with the Code of Practice seriously, and whilst it investigates every concern, doesn’t comment on specific cases.

Complaints about private parking are a constant in the Watchdog inbox and we have previously raised these concerns with the government. In 2025, the government said it had inherited a “dysfunctional private parking market” which lacked transparency and protection for motorists. It has said standards across the industry need to improve and is hoping to bring a new Code of Practice before Parliament this autumn.

John’s case has now been resolved. The BPA said that, following a review, it concluded the Code of Practice had been followed. Parking Eye subsequently reviewed additional evidence and cancelled the £100 charge. Liz has since heard that her parking charge has been dropped. Carita and Sophie have had no further updates.