The 19 areas where car parking charges have skyrocketed by 100% revealed – is your location on the list?
New data reveals that some councils have doubled their rates over the past year, forcing drivers to pay up to 100% more.
2
The research, carried out by NetVoucherCodes on behalf of The Sun, compared hourly parking costs in city centres from this year to last.
Milton Keynes leads the pack with a jaw-dropping 100% rise.
Drivers now pay £1 an hour in some locations - up from 50p last year.
While still one of the cheapest places to park, the council says the increase is necessary to manage demand and fund local services.
Liverpool isn't far behind, with a 67% surge in charges.
Rates jumped from £2.40 to £4 an hour, sparking outrage from local businesses.
Liverpool has seen a 67% jump, with prices rising from £2.40 to £4. York follows closely with a 56% hike, increasing from £3.10 to £4.85.
In Cardiff, hourly parking charges have gone up by 35%, from £2.60 to £3.50.
Manchester has also introduced a significant rise of 33%, taking its hourly charge from £3 to £4.
Leicester saw a 25% increase, moving from £2 to £2.50.
Major parking change for ALL drivers in England
Oxford continues to be one of the most expensive cities, with a 15% rise pushing its rates from £6.60 to £7.60.
Birmingham and Bristol both saw a 13% hike, with charges climbing from £3.80 to £4.30 and £4 to £4.50 respectively.
Glasgow 's hourly rate went up by 13%, from £6.40 to £7.20.
Plymouth experienced a smaller increase of 12%, with charges rising from £1.65 to £1.85.
Doncaster followed with a 10% rise, moving from £2 to £2.20. Edinburgh, now the most expensive city for parking in the UK, raised its already high rates by 10%, from £8.20 to £9.
Coventry saw a modest increase of 9%, with hourly fees going from £1.10 to £1.20.
Nottingham and Newcastle both increased their charges by 7%, with Nottingham rising from £2.80 to £3 and Newcastle from £2.90 to £3.10.
Brighton and Hove also saw a 7% rise, with fees going up from £1.50 to £1.60.
2
Peterborough and Luton introduced smaller increases of 4%, with Peterborough rising from £2.50 to £2.60 and Luton from £2.80 to £2.90.
Leeds saw the smallest increase, with a 3% rise taking its hourly rate from £3.30 to £3.40.
Consumer experts warn that these rising charges could harm city centres by driving people away from high streets and impacting local businesses.
Rebecca Bebbington from NetVoucherCodes called the increases unfair, especially as the cost of living is already rising.
Meanwhile, consumer rights expert Martyn James said: "Councils are clearly cash-strapped, but the massive price hikes and confusing signs are leaving drivers frustrated.
"While parking fees are rising, there's evidence that they're not always applied fairly."
Councils argue the increases are necessary to manage congestion, encourage greener travel, and support local economies.
Private parking fines on the rise
PRIVATE parking firms are on track to issue a record 14.5million fines in Britain this year, costing drivers up to £4.1million per day.
The RAC found five companies, including ParkingEye and Euro Car Parks, are responsible for nearly half of all tickets.
Between April and September, firms made 7.2million requests to the DVLA for driver details, a 12% increase from the previous year.
Tickets, often issued for alleged parking breaches at shopping centres and service areas, can cost up to £100.
Critics accuse companies of using confusing signs, faulty machines, and unfair fees to trap drivers.
Although a government-backed code of practice was approved in 2019, it was withdrawn in 2022 after legal challenges.
The RAC warns that without proper regulation, drivers are being treated unfairly.
The DVLA charges parking firms £2.50 per record but claims it does not profit from the process.
The British Parking Association argues only 0.3% of drivers in private car parks are fined, attributing the rise in tickets to more managed car parks.
Newcastle City Council said their fees, ranging from 70p to £3.10 an hour, are reviewed annually to promote sustainable transport.
Edinburgh Council defended its high charges, stating parking income is reinvested into roads and transport infrastructure.
A spokesperson for the Local Government Association said: "When setting parking charges, councils will take local circumstances into account including the impact on business, residents, visitors, other road users and modes of travel as well as rising costs of providing parking services.
"Income raised through on-street parking charges and fines is first spent on running parking services, with any surplus spent on essential transport improvements, including fixing local roads, reducing congestion, tackling poor air quality and supporting local bus services."
How do you appeal a parking ticket?
IF you receive a parking ticket, whether from a private company, the council, or the police, it's worth appealing.
Data shows two in five tickets are cancelled after an appeal.
Here's what you need to know...
The first step is to identify the type of parking ticket you have received:
Parking Charge Notices are issued by private parking companies like National Car Parks or Parkingeye
Penalty Charge Notices or Excess Charge Notices come from the council
Fixed Penalty Notices are issued by the police
Private parking fines
Check if the company is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) or International Parking Community (IPC).
If they aren't, Citizens Advice suggest waiting for them to contact you, as non-members often cannot access DVLA records.
If they do contact you, respond quickly. Companies must send notices within 14 days of the parking incident if no ticket was left on your car.
Start by complaining directly to the company using their formal process. Find BPA member details at britishparking.co.uk and IPC member details at theipc.info.
Gather evidence, like photos of unclear signs or proof of payment, to strengthen your case.
If your complaint is rejected, you can appeal. BPA members use Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA), and you have 28 days to appeal. IPC members use the Independent Appeals Service, with a 21-day deadline.
If your first appeal is rejected, consider appealing again—Popla overturns two in five tickets at the second stage.
Council-issued tickets
Submit evidence through the council's complaints process.
If rejected, you can challenge the decision at a free independent tribunal via trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk (or londontribunals.gov.uk for London).
Police-issued tickets
Send your objection to the nearest Central Ticket Office where the charge was issued.
Always gather as much evidence as possible to support your appeal, such as photos, receipts, or witness statements.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
5 minutes ago
- Times
Swinney has blown our chances of a payoff for all those turbines
Lesley Riddoch is fed up. Granted, this is not an unusual condition for the independence-supporting columnist and promoter of all things Nordic. But it is not hard to understand why she's upset that there was scarcely a murmur of discontent from the Scottish government last week after Ed Miliband scrapped zonal energy pricing. 'Where's the outcry from the SNP or Greens?' she asked, plaintively. What was so wrong about Scots getting cheaper bills? How could John Swinney have missed this opportunity to demand that Scots get direct benefit from Scotland's wind? Surely this was a slam dunk for a nationalist party which always claims that Scots were robbed of the last energy bonanza in the North Sea. Zonal pricing is the idea, promoted by Greg Jackson of Octopus Energy and backed by Jonathan Brearley of the regulator Ofgem, that electricity prices in Scotland should reflect its contribution to addressing climate change. All those wind farms in the North Sea and the towering turbines now gracing Scotland's hills are supposed to deliver cheap-as-chips energy. But Scottish bills have continued to rise, plunging around a million Scots into fuel poverty. • Rejection of postcode electricity pricing pleases energy bosses Yet Scotland could enjoy 'the cheapest energy costs in Europe', according to Jackson, if the UK government introduced zonal pricing. The cost of electricity, he says, should reflect the cost of producing and transporting it. In the past, location didn't matter much because power for the electricity grid was generated by coal, gas and nuclear plants which were dispersed across the country. But with renewable energy generated in the North Sea, location very much does matter. It is expensive to transport the electricity produced by Scottish wind farms to the south of England, where most of it is used. Huge infrastructure projects are necessary to drag the reluctant electrons five hundred miles through cables and interconnections. A lot of energy is lost on the way through heat and leakage. Allowing energy costs to fall in areas where it is generated should be more energy-efficient. More importantly, it might encourage energy-intensive industries to come to Scotland. Those footloose data centres and artificial intelligence companies, with their insatiable demand for energy, could locate in Scotland to take advantage of lower energy costs. Given the chronic overconcentration of economic activity in the south of England, this is not such a daft idea. At any rate, you'd think that this is something that would appeal to Swinney, the first minister, who keeps saying he wants economic growth brought back to Scotland. Scotland was one of the centres of the Industrial Revolution largely because of an abundance of coal and other raw materials. That's why the Clyde could build a fifth of world shipping before the First World War and mills such as Ravenscraig could later turn out miles of sheet metal for the motor industry. The days of coal are over, of course, and Westminster has passed a death sentence on the Scottish oil and gas industry. So surely Scotland would have a case for demanding that the new industries of the digital age should be located where energy is abundant. Of course, zonal pricing might have had awkward trade-offs. If Scots paid less for their energy, English consumers would presumably have to pay more. Yet it would not be a massive imposition for the 65 million consumers who don't live in Scotland to finance a couple of hundred quid off the bills of the five million who do. The main reason Swinney has been reluctant to campaign for zonal pricing is that the big energy companies, most notably SSE and Scottish Power, are firmly against it. These largely foreign-owned behemoths have a material interest in the status quo. They are compensated generously by a panoply of schemes such as contracts for difference, which effectively guarantee that the profits from renewable energy are never less than the profits they make from gas. At least a quarter of domestic energy bills go toward subsidies for renewables. They claim that they would not be able to finance new wind farms if differential pricing undermined profitability. However, the energy companies also benefit directly from the mismatch between where energy is generated and where it is used. Last year they earned nearly £2.7 billion in constraint payments, largely for turning their windmills off when they generated too much energy for the grid to accommodate. A quarter of Scotland's potential was switched off last year. Well, there seems an obvious solution to that. Even more obvious is surely the propaganda benefit to a nationalist government of a situation where Scottish wind energy was actually being wasted. Moreover, communities are already being compensated for proximity to wind farms, albeit in a very limited way. RES, a renewables development company, has been setting up local energy discount schemes (LEDs) across the country since 2012. Properties near Glenchamber Wind Farm in Dumfries and Galloway can apply for a £200 discount on electricity bills. So zonal pricing is actually happening — just not at scale. And even as Miliband killed the idea of zonal pricing, he promised zonal compensation for communities facing wind farm development. There will have to be, he said, 'direct community benefits'. Perhaps it is not feasible to disaggregate the National Grid to create zonal pricing. There is a democratic argument that energy costs should be the same across the UK. But given that so much of the cost of renewables is covered by subsidies, surely this could be re-engineered to allow Scottish homes and businesses to benefit from all that wind. UK energy policy is anyway riddled with anomalies, waste and unfairness. Miliband is using punitive taxation to accelerate the collapse of Scotland's oil and gas industry. The promise of a bonanza of green jobs has been as false as Labour's promise to cut energy bills by £300. If zonal pricing isn't feasible, then what would be a sensible way of compensating Scots for the disruption to their environment and their selfless contribution to saving the planet? And why isn't the Scottish government arguing for it? For once, there is good reason here to play the Scottish card. Instead of meekly acquiescing in the diktat of the renewable energy cartel, the Scottish government should be holding Miliband's feet to the fire and making sure the dash for renewables doesn't leave Scotland on the sidelines. As Riddoch says: 'Why the heck not?'
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Farage beats Starmer in every respect except one, poll finds
Voters believe Nigel Farage is better than Sir Keir Starmer in almost every respect, but is less honest than him, according to a new poll. The Reform UK leader is seen as being more in touch with ordinary people, paying greater attention to detail and being a stronger leader than the Prime Minister. A new survey by Ipsos asked respondents to say whether they felt certain positive characteristics applied to Sir Keir, Mr Farage or Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader. The Reform leader came out on top in every question, apart from when voters had to say which of the leaders they believed was an 'honest person'. It comes as Reform continues to surge in the polls, with Ipsos finding that the party is ahead of Labour and the Conservatives. The party exceeded expectations at the local elections in May, when they gained over 600 councillors and seized the parliamentary seat of Runcorn and Helsby from Labour. More than 50 per cent of voters said that Mr Farage had 'a lot of personality', compared to just 21 per cent saying the same of the Prime Minister. Thirty seven per cent said that they felt Mr Farage was a capable leader, and 41 per cent said they would describe him as a strong leader, compared to just 31 per cent and 26 per cent for Sir Keir. But a third of respondents said that the Prime Minister was honest, compared to 29 per cent for Mr Farage. Sir Keir suffered the biggest fall in approval rating after winning an election of any prime minister in the modern era, despite his landslide 174-seat majority. Despite the vast number of Labour MPs, ministers have struggled to pass key legislation because of the discontent on their backbenches. The largest rebellion of the Prime Minister's career meant that he was forced to back down on several elements of his welfare reforms, eradicating billions in planned savings. Other policies that have attracted particularly widespread criticism include the scrapping of the universal winter fuel payment for pensioners, which the Chancellor had to partly reverse. The new polling also found that just a quarter of people believe that Rachel Reeves will still be the Chancellor by the next general election. The number of voters who think that Sir Keir understands the problems facing Britain has fallen by 18 per cent since the general election last year. The latest poll also found that voters narrowly judged Mr Farage to be 'good in a crisis' at 27 per cent, compared to 26 per cent for Sir Keir. Mrs Badenoch received just 18 per cent.
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘It's very personal to me': Darren Jones on his £500m plan to fight child poverty
Darren Jones has spent much of the past few months doing the traditional, hard-nosed job of a Treasury chief secretary – fighting line-by-line budget battles with ministers. But with last month's fraught spending review over, he has turned his attention to an issue closer to his heart for his latest policy. 'The council estate I grew up on was one of the neighbourhoods that was picked by the New Labour government because it was so deprived, essentially, in terms of income and educational outcomes,' he says. The 38-year-old MP for Bristol North West grew up in a flat on the Lawrence Weston estate. His mother was a hospital administrator and his father a security guard, and he has previously spoken about how money was sometimes tight at home. In his maiden speech in the House of Commons, he proudly mentioned being the first Darren to be an MP. Jones cites Labour support for local community group Ambition Lawrence Weston – still thriving today – as well as a taxpayer-funded 'gifted and talented' scheme, as crucial in helping to signpost him towards university, as the first in his family to go. He went on to qualify as a solicitor, and was an in-house lawyer for BT before being elected in 2017. With projects like these in mind, he is now announcing that the Treasury will invest £500m over a decade, alongside private backers, in a new 'social outcome partnership' to fund grassroots projects tackling child poverty. He says he made it a personal mission since arriving in the Treasury last summer to dramatically expand this form of 'social impact investment'. Pioneered by Gordon Brown's Treasury, it is an approach that involves private investors matching taxpayer funding for neighbourhood-level anti-poverty projects. These backers earn a modest return, but only if the scheme meets specific targets – which might be, Jones says, getting a certain number of children into college, or university, or parents into secure jobs, for example. The fund is expected to be the largest such vehicle in the world. 'It's really trying to just unlock those opportunities, like it did for me,' he said. 'I've now had a great career and I get to do this job. And a lot of that stems from what the New Labour government did. So essentially this type of funding mechanism, this investment into tackling the root causes of poverty is something that's very personal to me.' The detailed proposal emerged from a social impact investment advisory group, set up by Jones last year. It was due to wind down this summer, but will now continue at his request, to draw up plans for a more general template for social impact projects, that could be applicable across Whitehall. The approach is of a piece with Jones's relentless optimism that, despite governing in a time of straitened fiscal circumstances, this Labour government can find innovative ways to do more with less. 'The public really want things to change and get better and we agree with that, but because we've inherited these really challenging economic circumstances, we can only do so much with the traditional mechanisms. So we're open to trying to find other ways of getting stuff done for the country and improving people's lives,' he says. That includes considering launching a new generation of public private partnerships, which the government hopes could be used to fund the new neighbourhood health centres, that are at the heart of Wes Streeting's 10-year plan for the NHS. Jones insists these will be narrower and less complex than the controversial projects launched through the private finance initiative (PFI) under New Labour, some of which have saddled operators with hefty bills. 'We are not doing PFI. We're not doing that, these very complicated contracts. We're not talking about hospitals or schools or prisons or anything like that.' But he added: 'If there's an innovative way of delivering a key objective for us, that's what we're trying to make happen.' For the same reason, he is a keen advocate of the wider use of AI in government, though he insists it must be 'an enabling tool, not a replacement' for civil servants. While he is upbeat by temperament, Jones acknowledges the fearsome squeeze the government faces, in the week the Office for Budget Responsibility warned that the UK's public finances are on an unsustainable course, and after his boss Rachel Reeves's tearful outing in parliament sent bond markets reeling. 'Debt is nearly 100% of GDP: it's expensive, it costs a lot of money. We've had poor productivity growth and wage growth in the economy for the last 10 years. And so what the government, what Rachel's trying to do is walk that tightrope out of that kind of fiscal headache,' he says. The ambitious Jones was touted by bookmaker Coral earlier this month as the second most likely successor to Reeves, after the Cabinet Office minister, Pat McFadden. But he is fiercely loyal to his boss, repeatedly underscoring the importance of her fiscal framework. 'Fiscal rules are not self-constraining tools to just flagellate yourself with. They're there for a reason,' he says. He refuses to be drawn on the prospect of tax rises in Reeves's autumn budget, which are widely expected, in the light of the U-turns over welfare cuts and the winter fuel allowance, and continued weakness in the economy. But he does repeat the chancellor's promise that after the welfare cuts, 'we'll make sure that's fully funded in a proper way at the budget' – but without jeopardising Labour's manifesto promises not to touch the major revenue raisers of income tax, employee national insurance or VAT. 'We're going to honour our promises.' Challenged as to when voters will start to feel the benefits of Labour's investments in infrastructure, housing and industry, Jones says the government will make no apology for taking a long-term view. But he also points to more immediate plans, set out in the spending review, to repair public buildings. 'It's not very sexy, but we put loads of extra money into maintenance,' he said. He then goes on an enthusiastic digression about how Labour's long-term funding for pothole maintenance, in contrast to annual budgets under the Tories, will allow local authorities to 'actually dig out the bit of the road that's broken and relay it properly,' rather than just, 'get the guys to come out and put tarmac in the hole'. Posing before the vast oil painting of Queen Victoria that dominates his airy Treasury office overlooking St James's Park, Jones gives a final demonstration of his caution with public money. The imposing work was chosen from the government art collection by Jones's predecessor, Laura Trott. He is not a big fan, he says. 'I thought it would cost a fortune to get it out, which is the reason I left it.'
