DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 64491--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Parked in a disabled bay without displaying valid
Disabled badge Grove Farm Retail Park Chadwell Heath. RM6 4B
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 27, 2025, 12:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have removed those attachments. You may wish to obscure your
name and home address.
#Post#: 64493--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Parked in a disabled bay without displaying valid
Disabled badge Grove Farm Retail Park Chadwell Heath. RM6 4B
DIR By: b789
Date: March 27, 2025, 12:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It is not a bailiff letter. Just because they use the name
"bailiff" it does not mean that that is a bailiff letter. You
can safely ignore any debt recovery letter. They are powerless
to actually do anything except to make the low-hanging fruit on
the gullible tree pay out of ignorance and fear. Ignore them and
we don't need to know about them.
Never, ever communicate with a powerless debt collector. You can
shred their letter and use them as hamster bedding. Nothing will
happen.
#Post#: 64539--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Parked in a disabled bay without displaying valid
Disabled badge Grove Farm Retail Park Chadwell Heath. RM6 4B
DIR By: D23
Date: March 27, 2025, 5:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your reply.
Yeah, I completely agree. Debt collectors rely on fear and
ignorance to make people pay when they have no real power.
Unless it’s a court order or an actual bailiff with legal
authority, their letters mean nothing. I’ll just ignore it and
move on. Appreciate the advice!
Also, in the meantime, should I just wait for any further
developments? I checked the Royal Mail tracking, and my
complaint letter was collected by G24—it even has a signature
confirming receipt. What would you suggest I do next, if
anything?
I've attached the proof of postage.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 64611--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Parked in a disabled bay without displaying valid
Disabled badge Grove Farm Retail Park Chadwell Heath. RM6 4B
DIR By: b789
Date: March 28, 2025, 7:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Wait for the response to your complaint. You didn't have to sed
it recorded delivery. You could simply have used first class
post and sent it from any post office with a free proof of
posting certificate. That would have been enough to satisfy the
requirements of the Interpretation Act as evidence that it had
been delivered two working days later.
In the meantime, you can also make a formal complaint to the
DVLA about this operator.
Here’s how to make a DVLA complaint:
[indent]• Go to:
HTML https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/complaints
• Select: “Making a complaint or compliment about the Vehicles
service you have received”
• Enter your personal details, contact details, and vehicle
details
• Use the text box to summarise your complaint or insert a
covering note
• You will then be able to upload a file (up to 19.5 MB) — this
can be your full complaint or supporting evidence
That’s it.[/indent]
The DVLA is required to record, investigate and respond to every
complaint about a private parking company. If everyone who
encounters a breach took the time to submit a complaint, we
might finally see the DVLA take meaningful action—whether that
means curtailing or removing KADOE access altogether.
For the text part of the complaint the webform could use the
following:
[indent]I am submitting a formal complaint against [INSERT PPC
NAME], an [INSERT IPC or BPA] AOS member with DVLA KADOE access,
for breaching the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP) after obtaining my personal data.
While the Operator may have had reasonable cause at the time of
their KADOE request, their subsequent misuse of my data—through
conduct that contravenes the PPSCoP—renders that use unlawful.
The PPSCoP forms an integral part of the DVLA’s governance
framework for data access by private parking firms. Continued
access is conditional on compliance.
The DVLA, as data controller, is obliged under UK GDPR and the
Data Protection Act 2018 to investigate and take enforcement
action when data is misused following release. This complaint is
not about whether the data was obtained lawfully at the outset,
but whether its subsequent use breached the terms under which it
was provided.
I have prepared a supporting statement setting out the nature of
the breach and the Operator’s actions, and I request a full
investigation into this matter. I have attached the supporting
document.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm the reference number for
this complaint.[/indent]
Then you could upload the following as a PDF file for the formal
complaint itself:
[indent]SUPPORTING STATEMENT
Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP
Operator name: [INSERT PPC NAME]
Date of PCN issue: [INSERT DATE]
Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]
I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my personal
data by [INSERT PPC NAME], who obtained my keeper details from
the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) contract.
Although the parking company may have had reasonable cause to
request my data initially, the way they have used that data
afterwards amounts to unlawful processing. This is because they
have acted in breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code
of Practice (PPSCoP), which is a mandatory requirement for
access to DVLA keeper data. The PPSCoP forms part of the
framework that regulates how parking companies must behave once
they have received keeper data from the DVLA.
The KADOE contract makes clear that keeper data may only be used
to pursue an unpaid parking charge in line with the Code of
Practice. If a parking company fails to comply with the PPSCoP
after receiving DVLA data, their use of that data becomes
unlawful, as they are no longer using it for a permitted
purpose.
In this case, [INSERT PPC NAME] has breached the PPSCoP in the
following ways:
[INSERT A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE BREACH(ES), e.g. failure to
follow grace periods, misleading notices, refusal to engage with
a complaint, pursuing a charge despite having evidence of
disability or mitigation, etc.]
These are not minor or technical breaches. They show a clear
disregard for the standards required under the current single
Code. As a result, the operator is no longer entitled to use the
keeper data they obtained from the DVLA, because the purpose for
which it was provided (a fair and lawful pursuit of a charge
under the Code) no longer applies.
The DVLA remains the Data Controller for the data it releases
under KADOE, and is therefore responsible for ensuring that
personal data is not misused by third parties. This includes
taking action against AOS operators who breach the conditions
under which the data was provided. I am therefore asking the
DVLA to investigate this breach and to take appropriate action
under the terms of the KADOE contract.
This may include:
[indent]• Confirming that a breach has occurred
• Taking enforcement action against the operator
•Suspending or terminating their KADOE access if
warranted[/indent]
I have attached relevant supporting material with this
statement. Please confirm receipt and provide a reference for
this complaint. I am also happy to provide further information
if required.
Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]
Date: [INSERT DATE][/indent]
#Post#: 65380--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Parked in a disabled bay without displaying valid
Disabled badge Grove Farm Retail Park Chadwell Heath. RM6 4B
DIR By: D23
Date: April 2, 2025, 6:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Today I have recieved a reply from G24 after my complaint letter
please see attached and advice thanks all
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 65384--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Parked in a disabled bay without displaying valid
Disabled badge Grove Farm Retail Park Chadwell Heath. RM6 4B
DIR By: b789
Date: April 2, 2025, 7:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Their reply does not adequately address the substance of your
formal complaint and appears to dismiss key arguments without
engaging with the specific PPSCoP breaches raised.
Here is an outline of the issues in their response, which you
may wish to raise further in your escalation to the IPC and
potentially DVLA:
1. Failure to Address PPSCoP Breaches
a. Payment Deadline Misrepresentation (PPSCoP Section 8.1.1(e))
G24 has not addressed your specific point regarding the
misstatement of the 28-day payment window in the Notice to
Keeper. You correctly referenced that the PPSCoP mandates the 28
days must be counted from the date of receipt, not issue.
G24’s failure to respond to this breach may indicate tacit
acceptance that their NtK wording is non-compliant. This is
material non-compliance and misleads recipients as to their
rights.
b. Breakdown Exemption (Annex F1(c))
You cited the breakdown exemption clause from Annex F1(c) of the
PPSCoP. G24 entirely ignored this clause, instead restating
general terms about disabled bays and misuse. Their failure to
consider the breakdown evidence contradicts the Code, which
prohibits enforcement where mechanical failure is evidenced.
2. Failure to Provide Proof of Posting
You asked G24 to provide proof of when the NtK was entered into
the postal system, not when it was generated. The PPSCoP
(Section 8.1.2(e) Note 2) obliges them to keep records of
posting, especially if using mail consolidators.
G24’s failure to provide any such evidence breaches the PPSCoP,
and this undermines any assumption that their NtK was delivered
within the PoFA window for keeper liability.
3. Inappropriate Reliance on Legal Cases
G24 cites ParkingEye v Somerfield and other cases without
addressing the actual facts of your complaint. These cases do
not override the operator’s obligation to comply with the
PPSCoP, which is a mandatory condition of IPC membership and
KADOE access.
4. Misuse of Debt Collection Escalation
They state that the charge has been passed to debt collection
and invite you to correspond with the debt firm. However, this
does not absolve them of responsibility to address your
complaint under the Code of Practice.
The PPSCoP is clear that once a complaint is raised, it must be
fully investigated by the operator before referring the matter
elsewhere.
So, have you made a formal complaint to the DVLA as advised?
You can make a formal complaint to the IPC but I think that may
just be a waste of time and you should just wait for them to
issue a claim and then raise their unreasonable behaviour in
court.
#Post#: 65471--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Parked in a disabled bay without displaying valid
Disabled badge Grove Farm Retail Park Chadwell Heath. RM6 4B
DIR By: D23
Date: April 2, 2025, 7:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Totally they have disregarded everything I have said.
I have not yet sent the DVLA letter but I will make this a top
priority and send them the complaint today 03/04/2025.
So would I assume the process now is to just wait for the letter
of claim and ignore all letters from anyone.
thanks
#Post#: 66483--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Parked in a disabled bay without displaying valid
Disabled badge Grove Farm Retail Park Chadwell Heath. RM6 4B
DIR By: D23
Date: April 10, 2025, 10:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dvla acknowledgement of complaint and now in contact with
company will keep everyone updated
Thank you
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 79329--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Parked in a disabled bay without displaying valid
Disabled badge Grove Farm Retail Park Chadwell Heath. RM6 4B
DIR By: D23
Date: July 2, 2025, 5:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is an updated letter from DCB legal who are now threatening
me.
Do I continue to ignore them ?
Also after speaking to DVLA they have ignored my complaint and
say that G24 was allowed to access my information, i have
attached their response.
thanks
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 79353--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Parked in a disabled bay without displaying valid
Disabled badge Grove Farm Retail Park Chadwell Heath. RM6 4B
DIR By: b789
Date: July 3, 2025, 3:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Respond to the LoC with the following, by email to
info@dcblegal.co.uk and also CC in yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the
claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places
reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
>
> Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the
requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims
(paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice
Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you
must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the
documents/information that the protocol now requires your client
to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without
complying with that protocol.
>
> As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the
requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action
Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator
of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and
your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind
all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim.
Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the
claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to
enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate
a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring
the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.
It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a
consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete
ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the
Pre-Action Protocol.
>
> I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim
that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the
Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a
formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol.
Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by
sending me the following information/documents:
>
> [indent]1. An explanation of the cause of action
> 2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
> 3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of
POFA 2012
> 4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is
claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed
arose and have been calculated
> 5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the
date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and
provide to me a copy of that contract.
> 6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs
showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said
contract.
> 7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
> 8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under
which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by
the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
> 9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
> 10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of
font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged
contravention.
> 11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any
interest and administrative or other charges added
> 12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what
is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett
or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why
I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
> 13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this
damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for
parking?[/indent]
>
> I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs
6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order
to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
>
> If your client does not provide me with this information then
I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb
Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch),
Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part
20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church
Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann
Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions
on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant
to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice
Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
>
> Until your client has complied with its obligations and
provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to
the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it,
and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court
time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client
do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph
15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this
information is provided.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your name]
--- End Quote ---
You can also raise the DVLA complaint to Step 2, which is
identical to Step 1 but the link to the complaint webform is:
HTML https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/head-of-complaints
So, follow the advice I gave for the Step 1 complaint and just
use the following for your webform and supporting statement:
DVLA Step 2 Webform Complaint
--- Quote ---
> I am escalating my complaint (Ref: 0400043) to Step 2 of the
DVLA complaints process because your response dated 16 April
2025, signed by Carly Williams, failed to engage with the
substance of my complaint.
>
> I did not dispute G24 Ltd’s initial request for my keeper
data. My complaint was – and remains – about their subsequent
misuse of that data, in breach of the Private Parking Single
Code of Practice (PPSCoP), specifically Annex F1(c) and Section
8.3.1. These breaches make their ongoing use of my personal data
unlawful under the terms of the KADOE contract and UK GDPR.
>
> Ms Williams’ response merely restated the reasonable cause
basis for the original request, which I had already accepted.
The DVLA has a statutory obligation to regulate how my data is
used after disclosure. This includes investigating misuse and
taking action under the terms of the KADOE contract.
>
> I have attached a supporting statement setting out the PPSCoP
breaches by G24 Ltd and the legal basis for this escalation.
Please treat this as a formal Step 2 complaint and confirm that
it has been referred to the Head of Complaints for
investigation.
--- End Quote ---
Supporting Statement (for upload)
--- Quote ---
> SUPPORTING STATEMENT
>
> Step 2 Complaint to DVLA – Unlawful Use of Keeper Data by G24
Ltd
>
> Operator: G24 Ltd
> DVLA Ref: 0400043
> DVLA Response Date: 16 April 2025
> VRN: [insert vehicle registration]
>
> I am escalating this complaint because the DVLA’s Step 1
response from Carly Williams (dated 16 April 2025) entirely
failed to address my actual complaint. That letter
misrepresented my position and provided a boilerplate defence of
DVLA’s data release process.
>
> To be clear: I do not dispute that G24 Ltd had reasonable
cause at the time of requesting my data. My complaint concerns
what happened afterwards – specifically, that G24 misused that
data by pursuing a charge in breach of the Private Parking
Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which governs lawful use under
the KADOE contract.
>
> The specific breaches are as follows:
>
> [indent[• Annex F1(c) breach – I submitted clear evidence that
the vehicle was broken down and awaiting recovery. G24 ignored
this and continued to pursue the charge, despite the PPSCoP
expressly prohibiting enforcement in such circumstances.
> • Section 8.3.1 breach – The Notice to Keeper falsely claimed
that payment was due within 28 days of the issue date. The
PPSCoP requires 28 days from receipt. This misrepresentation is
misleading and materially prejudices the recipient.
> • Failure to substantively respond to a formal complaint – G24
was given the opportunity to address these issues directly but
failed to do so, continuing to process and pass on my data to
third parties.[/indent]
>
> These are not minor lapses. They are material breaches of the
PPSCoP and render G24’s ongoing use of my keeper data unlawful.
The DVLA remains the Data Controller for that data and is
responsible for ensuring that AOS operators do not misuse it
after access is granted.
>
> Under the terms of the KADOE contract and the Data Protection
Act 2018, the DVLA must investigate this misuse and take action,
including:
>
> [indent]• Acknowledging that a breach has occurred
> • Issuing sanctions against G24 Ltd for PPSCoP violations
> • Suspending or revoking G24’s KADOE access if
warranted[/indent]
>
> I request a full and proper investigation into G24’s misuse of
my data. Please confirm receipt and confirm that this Step 2
complaint has been escalated to the Head of Complaints.
>
> Name: [insert your name]
> Date: [insert today’s date]
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page