Rogue parking companies that issue tickets to drivers who have parked on private land are to be barred from obtaining details of the vehicle’s registered keeper from the DVLA unless they comply with a new code.

The companies will have to agree to charge a standard penalty of no more than £75 and will be banned from turning up on people’s doorsteps or marching drivers to cashpoints.

The DVLA has been forced to act after an outcry from drivers who have been charged up to £200 for parking briefly in a private car park. Some companies have resorted to intimidation, sending debt collectors to people’s homes and demanding large sums in cash on the spot.

The DVLA gives registered keepers’ details to anyone who has “reasonable cause”, and this has been interpreted to include private companies that enforce parking restrictions on private land. Supermarkets frequently employ these companies, which are typically not paid by their clients but make all their income from the penalties they hand out to motorists.

Some firms use cameras to monitor car park entrances and exits, meaning that many drivers do not realise that they have been caught until a ticket arrives in the post days later. By then, they may have used the car park several times.

Rogue companies have been prevented from clamping vehicles under regulations introduced last year that require clamping staff to be accredited by the Security Industry Authority. But many have switched instead to issuing tickets for any amount they like and using aggressive techniques to get drivers to pay.

The British Parking Association (BPA), the trade body that will enforce the code, estimates that last year more than 2.5 million tickets were issued on private land.

From October, the DVLA will give names and addresses of registered keepers only to companies that are members of an accredited trade association. The BPA is the only association to have been accredited.

Keith Banbury, chief executive of the BPA, said the number of parking companies able to access the DVLA’s database would fall from 150 to 50.

“We hope this will wipe out the rogue operators and that the public can look forward to a fairer, regulated regime for parking on private land.”

The BPA said that, under the code, no motorists should be charged more than £75 if they paid within seven days. The maximum penalty can rise to £150 for late payment.

After 28 days, companies can start court proceedings and the driver may incur additional court fees.

The BPA is appointing a compliance manager who will investigate complaints about breaches of the code and carry out checks on members.

Mr Banbury admitted that the new system did not include any independent appeal body, such as the one that covers parking tickets issued on public roads.

Companies simply have to abide by an approved internal disputes procedure. The BPA will not adjudicate in individual disputes and in practice some drivers are likely to have to go to court to argue their cases.

Stephen Ladyman, the Transport Minister, defended the right of companies to continue obtaining details as long as they abided by the code.

“If you don’t allow parking companies to gain access to this information, they will have to resort to clamping and that’s not in motorists’ interests.”

The DVLA has been accused of profiting from selling keepers’ details and of failing to check whether the persons receiving the information had criminal records. It earned more then £6.3 million selling details to 157 companies in the year ending March 2006.

The code of practice

— Maximum standard charge: £75 (maximum charge if unpaid £150). Parking company’s name, address and phone number must be displayed in car park and on ticket

— Parking rules must be clearly displayed

— Phone number must connect with a person, not an automated payments system

— Ten minutes’ grace for drivers who paid but overstayed

— Staff to wear uniform and carry ID. They must not escort drivers to cash machines

— Firms may telephone or write if tickets are unpaid but may not visit drivers’ homes

— Companies must offer a “proper route of appeal and dispute process”

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Family cuts its waste to one binful a year
• Cameron can learn from Thatcher in 1979
• VAT is back ... and it's confusing