DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 58756--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to
court now
DIR By: gimpel
Date: February 18, 2025, 10:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your reply
Will I earn anything from doing this now or I should wait until
after mediation?
#Post#: 58764--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to
court now
DIR By: b789
Date: February 18, 2025, 11:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The mediation is not part of the judicial process. Your only
requirement is to "attend" the call. Do not enter into any
discussion about the merits of your case with the mediator. They
are not legally trained. There is no judge or lawyers involved
at this stage.
You simply say that you are prepared to offer Ł0 or... are
prepared to accept, say... Ł150 from the claimant in lieu of an
application for costs for Ł219 due to their unreasonable
behaviour.
As for the formal complaints, there is no reason to delay any of
those. Are you prepared to make those complaints? If so, I can
assist by drafting them for you. Let me know.
#Post#: 58807--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to
court now
DIR By: gimpel
Date: February 18, 2025, 4:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes please help me with this
#Post#: 58857--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to
court now
DIR By: b789
Date: February 19, 2025, 7:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
To start, the formal complaint to NPC is fully allowed despite
the alleged debt being under litigation in court. NPC is still
obliged to respond under the complaint handling requirements of
the PPSCoP.
The PPSCoP requires parking operators to handle complaints
separately from debt collection and legal action. PPSCoP section
11.2 states that operators must have a clear and accessible
complaints procedure and must acknowledge complaints within 14
days and provide a full response within 28 days. There is no
exemption from this requirement just because litigation is
ongoing.
The litigation does not override the requirement to address
complaints. The court claim concerns the alleged debt, while the
formal complaint concerns procedural breaches under PoFA, misuse
of DVLA keeper data (KADOE breach), and failure to follow the
PPSCoP. These are separate regulatory and compliance issues that
NPC must address.
The complaint also puts NPC on notice of a potential KADOE
investigation. The DVLA takes KADOE breaches seriously. If NPC
ignores or dismisses the complaint, the matter can be escalated
to the DVLA, which could affect NPC’s ability to access
registered keeper data in the future.
NPC must acknowledge the complaint within 14 days, provide a
full response within 28 days, justify their continued pursuit of
the keeper despite receiving a valid transfer of liability, and
explain why they continued processing your data despite the
requirements of PoFA Schedule 4.
If NPC fails to respond properly or at all, this strengthens the
case for escalation to the DVLA for KADOE breaches, a formal
GDPR complaint to the ICO, and an unreasonable behaviour costs
claim under CPR 27.14(2)(g) if they later discontinue the claim.
The complaint is fully justified and enforceable under the
PPSCoP, and NPC is obliged to respond, even though the court
claim is ongoing.
Here is a formal complaint to NPC that they will be bound to
respond to. Save it as a PDF document and attach it to an email
addressed to DPO@nationalparkingcontrol.co.uk and CC it to
info@dcblegal.co.uk and to yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal Complaint – Breach of PoFA Schedule 4 & KADOE
Contract Non-Compliance
>
> National Parking Control
> Complaints Department
> The Pinnacle
> Station Way
> Crawley
> RH101JH
>
> Delivered by email: DPO@nationalparkingcontrol.co.uk
>
> Date: [Insert Date]
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> Re: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) [Insert PCN Number] – Formal
Complaint Regarding Procedural Breaches
>
> I am making a formal complaint regarding National Parking
Control’s (NPC) unlawful pursuit of keeper liability, despite my
full compliance with the transfer of liability process, in
direct breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
Schedule 4. Furthermore, your conduct in this matter is a clear
breach of the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract with the
DVLA, and I will be requesting a full investigation into your
continued access to DVLA data.
>
> Breach of PoFA Schedule 4 – Keeper Liability Ceases Once
Driver Details Are Provided
>
> Paragraph 5(1)(b) – Keeper liability only applies if the
driver's name and address are unknown. PoFA explicitly states
that the creditor may only hold the keeper liable if the
creditor does not know both the name and serviceable address of
the driver.
>
> PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 5(1)(b):
>
> [indent]"The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid
parking charge from the keeper of the vehicle, but only if the
following conditions are met—"
>
> (b) The creditor does not know both the name of the driver and
a current address for service for the driver.[/indent]
>
> Since I provided both the name and a serviceable address for
the driver, NPC no longer has any legal right to hold me liable.
>
> PoFA does not require the serviceable address to be in the UK
>
> PoFA does not impose a geographical restriction on what
qualifies as a "serviceable address." The only requirement is
that the parking operator is provided with a "current address
for service." I provided a valid and serviceable address in the
United States, meaning NPC had no lawful basis to continue
pursuing me.
>
> NPC’s continued pursuit of keeper liability is an abuse of
process
>
> By continuing to pursue me despite acknowledging the transfer
of liability, NPC has:
>
> [indent]• Breached PoFA Schedule 4 by wrongly pursuing the
keeper when the driver’s details had already been provided.
> • Misused my personal data by continuing to process it
unlawfully when I was no longer the liable party.
> • Engaged in unreasonable behaviour by referring the matter to
debt collectors and ultimately issuing a county court claim
against an individual who cannot be held liable.[/indent]
>
> Breach of the KADOE Contract – Request for Investigation by
the DVLA
>
> Your failure to comply with PoFA Schedule 4 and the BPA/IPC
Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) means that you
have also breached the KADOE contract, which governs your access
to DVLA data.
>
> By unlawfully continuing to process my personal data and
issuing a claim against me despite my transfer of liability, you
have misused personal data obtained from the DVLA. I will be
submitting a formal complaint to the DVLA Data Protection Team
requesting a full investigation into whether NPC is fit to
retain access to the DVLA database. If the DVLA finds that you
have repeatedly breached the terms of the KADOE contract, this
could result in NPC losing its ability to access registered
keeper data entirely.
>
> Formal Complaint Resolution Demands
>
> I require NPC to take the following actions immediately:
>
> [indent]1. Discontinue the county court claim against me and
confirm this in writing.
> 2. Provide a full explanation as to why NPC unlawfully pursued
the keeper despite acknowledging the transfer of liability.
> 3. Cease all further unlawful processing of my data and
confirm in writing that my details will only be retained for the
duration of any ongoing legal proceedings.
> 4. Provide a data protection audit detailing why my data was
processed in breach of PoFA and the KADOE contract.[/indent]
>
> Failure to respond within 14 days will result in immediate
escalation to:
>
> [indent]• The DVLA, requesting an investigation into NPC’s
misuse of keeper data under the KADOE contract.
> • The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for GDPR
violations regarding unlawful data processing.
> • The IPC, highlighting multiple breaches of the Code of
Practice.[/indent]
>
> NPC is now on notice that if you continue to pursue this
claim, you may also face further legal consequences for your
data protection failings and potential unreasonable behaviour
costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Name]
> [Your Address]
> [Your Email]
--- End Quote ---
Once you receive a complaint reference number, you can raise a
complaint with the IPC too.
#Post#: 58861--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to
court now
DIR By: b789
Date: February 19, 2025, 7:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
DVLA – Complaint regarding NPC’s breach of the KADOE contract by
continuing to process keeper data despite a valid transfer of
liability.
Email this complaint to dataprotection@dvla.gov.uk and CC in
yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal Complaint – Breach of KADOE Contract by
National Parking Control (NPC)
>
> Complaints Team
> DVLA
> Swansea
> SA6 7JL
>
> By email to: dataprotection@dvla.gov.uk
>
> Date: [Insert Date]
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I am making a formal complaint regarding National Parking
Control’s (NPC) misuse of DVLA keeper data, in breach of the
Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract. NPC has continued to
process my personal data unlawfully, despite my full compliance
with the transfer of liability process as set out in Schedule 4
of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
>
> Background of the Complaint
>
> [indent]1. I received a Notice to Keeper for an alleged
parking contravention at Montefiore Court, London, N16 5TY,
dated 18/04/2024 for my vehicle VRM [VRM of the vehicle].
> 2. I immediately complied with their stated process to
transfer liability to the actual driver, my brother, who was
visiting from the USA, providing a valid and serviceable address
in the United States.
> 3. NPC acknowledged receipt of my transfer of liability
request via email.
> 4. Despite this, NPC:
>
> [indent]• Reissued the same PCN to me, continuing to pursue me
as the keeper.
> • Instructed debt collectors (DCB Legal) to pursue me, despite
having no lawful grounds to do so.
> • Issued a County Court claim against me, despite my lack of
liability under PoFA Schedule 4.[/indent][/indent]
>
> Breach of the KADOE Contract
>
> 1. Misuse of Keeper Data in Breach of PoFA Schedule 4
>
> NPC had no legal right to continue processing my personal data
after I provided the driver's details.
>
> PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 5(1)(b):
>
> [indent]"The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid
parking charge from the keeper of the vehicle, but only if the
following conditions are met—"
>
> (b) The creditor does not know both the name of the driver and
a current address for service for the driver.[/indent]
>
> I provided both the name and a valid serviceable address for
the driver, meaning NPC no longer had any lawful basis to
continue processing my data. Their actions are therefore a clear
misuse of DVLA keeper data under the KADOE contract.
>
> 2. PoFA and the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP) Do Not Require a UK-Based Serviceable Address
>
> Nowhere in PoFA Schedule 4 or the PPSCoP does it state that
the serviceable address must be in the United Kingdom.
>
> The only requirement is that the parking operator is provided
with a "current address for service". There is no geographical
restriction on what qualifies as a serviceable address, meaning
my provision of a valid U.S. address fully discharged my
liability as the keeper.
>
> NPC’s refusal to accept a lawful transfer of liability simply
because the address is outside the UK has no legal basis, and
its continued enforcement against me constitutes an abuse of its
access to DVLA data.
>
> 3. Failure to Comply with the KADOE Contract’s Data Protection
Obligations
>
> The KADOE contract only permits parking operators to obtain
and process keeper data for legitimate enforcement purposes.
Continuing to pursue the keeper when liability has been
transferred to the driver is not a legitimate purpose under
PoFA.
>
> NPC’s failure to act in accordance with PoFA and its continued
processing of my personal data has resulted in:
>
> [indent]• Unlawful processing of my personal data beyond what
PoFA Schedule 4 permits.
> • Harassment by debt collectors, despite NPC having no right
to enforce the charge against me.
> • A court claim being issued unlawfully, further misusing my
data.[/indent]
>
> NPC’s continued access to DVLA data while disregarding its
obligations under the KADOE contract raises serious concerns
about their fitness to retain access to registered keeper
information.
>
> Formal Complaint Resolution Demands
>
> I request that the DVLA:
>
> [indent]1. Conduct an investigation into NPC’s misuse of
keeper data and its non-compliance with the KADOE contract.
> 2. Confirm what enforcement action will be taken if NPC is
found to have breached its obligations.
> 3. Clarify whether NPC has faced previous complaints or
sanction points for similar misconduct.
> 4. Confirm what measures will be put in place to ensure that
NPC cannot misuse DVLA keeper data in this manner
again.[/indent]
>
> I expect a full response within 10 working days, failing which
I will escalate the matter to my MP and the Information
Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for further action.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Name]
> [Your Address]
> [Your Email]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 58997--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to
court now
DIR By: gimpel
Date: February 20, 2025, 6:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
NPC replied the following
Good morning,
Thank you for your email.
Please note that we comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (POFA).
With the address you have provided, we cannot conveniently
contact the driver as we only have power to enforce within the
UK.
This means that we are unable to take steps to enforce against
the driver. According to POFA, if we are unable to take steps to
enforce against the driver of the vehicle, we have the right to
recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the
vehicle (Schedule 4 Para 4(1)).
We resent you the Notice to Keeper, which you did not reply to.
As no response was received to this letter, the charge was
passed onto DCBL after 42 days, who then proceeded with their
4-stage letter cycle. However, it has now been passed to DCB
Legal who have been instructed to start court proceedings and,
unfortunately, the charges have been escalated too far, and we
are no longer willing to cancel or reduce it.
If you are unhappy with the outcome of your complaint, please
refer this to the IPC, our Accredited Trade Association.
Regards,

#Post#: 59013--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to
court now
DIR By: jfollows
Date: February 20, 2025, 7:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think that’s called a lie,
--- Quote ---
> 5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—
>
> (a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle
the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
>
> (b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against
the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of
the driver and a current address for service for the driver.
--- End Quote ---
and it’s their problem if the address is abroad. They have both
the name and a current address.
--- Quote ---
> 4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking
charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
>
> (2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—
>
> (a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so
far as applicable) are met; and
>
> (b)the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of
the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges
relate.
>
> (3)For the purposes of the condition in sub-paragraph (2)(b),
the vehicle is to be presumed not to be a stolen vehicle at the
material time, unless the contrary is proved.
>
> (4)The right under this paragraph may only be exercised after
the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which
the notice to keeper is given.
>
> (5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by
virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount
specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d)
or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the
unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so
specified).
>
> (6)Nothing in this paragraph affects any other remedy the
creditor may have against the keeper of the vehicle or any other
person in respect of any unpaid parking charges (but this is not
to be read as permitting double recovery).
>
> (7)The right under this paragraph is subject to paragraph 13
(which provides for the right not to apply in certain
circumstances in the case of a hire vehicle).
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 59025--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to
court now
DIR By: gimpel
Date: February 20, 2025, 8:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So what should I reply
#Post#: 59026--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to
court now
DIR By: jfollows
Date: February 20, 2025, 8:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Don’t.
DCB Legal may initiate court proceedings, but you defend this
with help from here and they will withdraw before paying the
fee. Come back for advice when they do.
#Post#: 59043--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Contol ignores Transfer of liability up to
court now
DIR By: b789
Date: February 20, 2025, 9:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As above. It's not worth wasting time replying to their flawed
arguments.
Their argument would never stand up in court but they will let
one of the incompetent bulk litigators progress it all the way
to a court claim anyway. As long as it is defended with our
advice, which if followed, will end up being struck out or
discontinued before it ever gets as far as a hearing.
However, I would suggest that you send. formal complaint to the
DVLA because NPC have breached their KADOE contract with the
DVLA because of why they have continued to pursue you after you
have complied with the requirements of PoFA to transfer
liability.
The more complaints the DVLA receive about the abuses of the
various operators, the more likely they will have to take action
against them.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page