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.

When we wrote to Parkingeye about John’s case, it told us that his case was handled in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice and the appeal was considered based on the information and evidence available to Parkingeye at the time.

Parkingeye told us the hotel car park in question was monitored by an ANPR camera system and featured more than 40 prominent signs advising non-guests that parking tariffs applied at all times, along with information on how to pay. It said that the vehicle remained on site for 15 minutes without payment being made, which resulted in a parking charge being issued automatically by Parkingeye’s system.

We were told that, as part of its commitment to transparency and best practice, motorists who believe a parking charge has been issued incorrectly can appeal through its British Parking Association-audited appeals process.
Parkingeye said that during the initial appeal, no evidence was provided to support the medical emergency cited by the motorist, and that this information was only submitted during the subsequent POPLA appeal. It wanted us to highlight that, in this case, POPLA independently assessed the case and found in favour of Parkingeye.

We were told that, having reviewed the additional evidence, Parkingeye has cancelled the parking charge and will refund John.
The parking provider concluded by saying it encourages motorists to provide any relevant evidence, including mitigating circumstances, as early as possible in the appeals process, and that had this additional information been provided by John at the outset, the matter could have been resolved without the need to progress to POPLA.

We also wrote to the BPA, which said John’s case highlighted the importance of motorists providing all available information and supporting evidence at the earliest opportunity, ideally during the operator appeal stage, as it can help ensure any relevant circumstances are fully considered before a case progresses further.

It said that where a motorist disagrees with an operator's decision, POPLA provides an independent appeals service and plays an important role in ensuring cases are assessed fairly and impartially.

The BPA told us that in John’s case, POPLA independently reviewed the evidence and concluded that the parking charge had been issued correctly, determining that the circumstances and evidence presented did not remove the requirement to pay for parking.

The BPA finished by saying that motorists should never ignore a parking charge or subsequent correspondence, and that engaging with the process and responding promptly can help avoid unnecessary escalation.

When we wrote to POPLA, it said it recognises that John didn't receive the outcome he had hoped for, and that it understands the circumstances behind his appeal.

It said that while this was understandably a concerning time for John, he and his wife were able to resume their journey within 15 minutes. It went on to say that as payment could still have been made once they were able to continue their journey, the circumstances didn't remove the requirement to pay, and the appeal was therefore rejected. POPLA concluded by saying it understands that further evidence has now been provided to the operator, who has cancelled the parking charge.

The IPC told us it takes compliance with the Code of Practice seriously. It said it doesn’t comment on individual cases, but it investigates every concern raised with it.

We were told that there are over 68.5 million parking events across the UK each day, with data showing 99.77% take place without issue. It said that parking is largely forgettable, as it should be, and that every concern that is raised deserves to be considered fully, against complete evidence.

The IPC said motorists who believe a parking charge has been issued in error should appeal, first to the operator and then, if not satisfied, to the Independent Appeals Service. It added that it strongly encourages motorists to engage with the system.
It added that it monitors compliance, investigates potential breaches and takes proportionate action, ranging from mandated corrective action up to expulsion. Finally, it said it welcomes a government-backed Code and remains committed to raising standards, improving transparency and maintaining public confidence.

We also put our concerns to the Government, which said it needs to drive up standards across the private parking industry because too many motorists are facing unfair practices and charges. This, the Government told us, is why it’s bringing in a strong parking Code of Practice as quickly as it can to protect motorists including by making the appeals system fairer and more proportionate.

You can watch the VT here for 28 days - https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0031xt8/the-one-show-23092026