Andy Burnham has proposed new rules that would give drivers five minutes to decide whether to park and ten minutes to leave after their session ends before a private parking fine can be issued. The change, outlined in a new code of practice for Greater Manchester, targets a system that many drivers experience as punitive rather than corrective. Private parking companies have long operated in a regulatory grey area, issuing fines for what amounts to seconds of overstay or minor administrative errors, with little oversight of how those penalties escalate. Burnham’s move reframes the question: what is a parking fine actually for — to enforce order, or to generate revenue?
The proposed rules are modest in technical terms, but they reflect a deeper shift in how the Burnham government approaches the relationship between citizens and private companies. The same logic that drove his intervention at Thames Water — that essential services and everyday interactions should not be designed to extract maximum profit from the vulnerable — applies here. Parking enforcement is a small thing, but the principle is not. When a system creates incentives to penalise rather than guide, it ceases to be about rules and becomes about exploitation. The five-minute grace period and the ten-minute exit window restore a sense of proportionality.
What makes this notable is that Burnham is acting at the metro-mayor level, not waiting for Westminster. The private parking industry has resisted national reform for years, arguing that self-regulation is sufficient. The evidence suggests otherwise. The number of appeals against private parking fines has risen sharply, and the industry’s own code of practice has been criticised for lacking teeth. Burnham’s code is an attempt to fill that gap, and other mayors may follow. It is a reminder that power does not only reside in Whitehall — local leadership can reshape daily life in concrete ways.
There is also a broader lesson here about how regulation can serve people rather than merely manage them. The Prophet’s injunction to “do not harm and do not reciprocate harm” is not just a religious ideal; it is a practical test for any system of rules. A parking regime that treats every minute over the limit as a revenue opportunity fails that test. A regime that builds in grace and exit windows passes it. Burnham’s proposal is not revolutionary, but it is sane, and sanity in public policy is rarer than it should be. The question now is whether other parts of the country will adopt similar protections, and whether the industry will accept the shift or fight it.