DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 64090--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - No Valid Payment - Railway Byelaws Bedford Station
DIR By: G6PRK
Date: March 25, 2025, 10:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Amazing, thank you [member=26]b789[/member]. Complaint response
sent.
On the MP letter, I assume it should be the MP for my
constituency rather than the one where the Railway Station is?
Any advantage to sending to both?
#Post#: 64113--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - No Valid Payment - Railway Byelaws Bedford Station
DIR By: b789
Date: March 25, 2025, 1:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes. It is always your own MP. They can, if necessary contact
the MP for the constituency elsewhere.
#Post#: 64116--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - No Valid Payment - Railway Byelaws Bedford Station
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 25, 2025, 1:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
When contacting your MP, alongside your name I would also
include your address.
In the past when I've contacted my MP, one of their staff has
got back to me to ask what my address is before passing the
message onto the MP, to make sure that I'm a constituent of
theirs.
#Post#: 64117--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - No Valid Payment - Railway Byelaws Bedford Station
DIR By: b789
Date: March 25, 2025, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, they need the address to confirm that you are one of their
constituents.
#Post#: 65679--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - No Valid Payment - Railway Byelaws Bedford Station
DIR By: G6PRK
Date: April 4, 2025, 1:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've received nothing following my reply to their useless
response to my complaint. Their complaints policy states 28 days
to respond fully to a complaint, or if it will be longer,
they'll let me know, which they haven't surprise surprise. As
such I'm going to reply again, pointing that out.
[member=26]b789[/member] / anyone else with a view - is there
any escalatory language you would suggest in that reply?
Additionally, I wonder given there is a data protection element,
and somewhat just for fun, if it might be with a SAR at this
stage? Any thoughts on that / any suggested wording? It's been a
few years since I've done one.
#Post#: 65711--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - No Valid Payment - Railway Byelaws Bedford Station
DIR By: b789
Date: April 5, 2025, 2:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, a follow-up is appropriate. Given their failure to provide
a full response within the 28-day timeframe as required under
their own complaints policy—and by Section 11.4 of the Private
Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)—you are well
within your rights to write again, formally registering their
non-compliance and warning of your intent to escalate.
Given the data handling issues raised—including inconsistency in
identifying the liable party, failure to provide clarity on
lawful processing grounds, and the suggestion that personal data
may have been shared improperly—a Subject Access Request (SAR)
under the UK GDPR would be appropriate at this point.
Here is a suggested response regarding the failure to address
the formal complaint:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Failure to Respond to Formal Complaint – Final
Reminder Prior to Escalation
>
> Dear [Complaints Handler / APCOA Complaints Department],
>
> I am writing to express my deep dissatisfaction with your
continued failure to properly address the formal complaint
submitted on [insert date]. Your email of 22 March 2025—while
acknowledging cancellation of the spurious “Penalty Notice”—did
not even attempt to provide a full and substantive response to
the serious matters raised.
>
> I remind you once again that your obligations are clear. As
per Section 11.4 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Sector Single
Code of Practice (PPSCoP):
>
> [indent]“A full response to a complaint must be provided by
the parking operator within 28 days of its receipt unless
exceptional circumstances apply, in which case the complainant
must be kept informed by the operator.”[/indent]
>
> No such full response has been received, and no justification
has been offered for this delay. In the absence of any
reasonable explanation, your failure to comply with both your
own policy and the industry Code of Practice amounts to a
flagrant disregard for accountability and transparency.
>
> To be absolutely clear: this matter is not closed. You are
under a continuing obligation to provide a detailed and
point-by-point reply to the concerns I raised. Your attempt to
offer a generic, dismissive response while hoping the issue
would disappear has been noted and will not be accepted.
>
> I will now allow a further 7 days for you to issue a complete
and substantive response addressing all of the following:
>
> [indent]• The basis on which you purport to issue “Penalty
Notices” that imply criminal liability, despite being a private
contractor with no statutory authority.
> • The misuse of Byelaw 14 to pursue civil enforcement outside
the scope of prosecution under Byelaw 24(1).
> • The misleading reference to criminal sanctions and statutory
enforcement powers in your correspondence.
> • Your misuse and misinterpretation of DVLA keeper data in an
attempt to establish liability.
> • The contradictory and inconsistent statements made by your
staff regarding the nature of the alleged contravention, the
liable party, and the appeals process.
> • The failure of your customer service agents to engage with
basic queries or offer any clarity to the recipient of your
demands.
> • The apparent mishandling of personal data, including
comments suggesting that information disclosed to me "shouldn’t
have been," which raises significant concerns over your internal
data governance and staff training.
> • The lack of clarity on what alleged contravention occurred,
and why no coherent explanation has ever been given.[/indent]
>
> If a full response is not received within 7 days, I will
escalate this matter formally to the British Parking
Association, the DVLA, and, where applicable, to the Information
Commissioner's Office. I also reserve the right to report the
matter to the police on the basis that your use of intimidating
and misleading documents may constitute an offence under Section
2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
>
> Let there be no doubt: this is not a matter that will simply
be allowed to lapse. You are now on notice to comply with your
obligations in full.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Name]
> [Your Address]
> [Reference number, if applicable]
--- End Quote ---
Here is the suggested format of a SAR which you email as a PDF
attachment to the DPO and CC in yourself. Their details will be
in the privacy policy on their website:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> RE: SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST
>
> I write to make a formal Subject Access Request in respect of
my personal information. I am entitled to make this request
under data protection laws. The request is made in accordance
with section 45 of the Data Protection Act 2018 and Article 15
of the retained EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679
(UK GDPR). You can identify my records using the information
which is listed below.
>
> For clarity, this request is directed to APCOA Parking (UK)
Ltd and all affiliated companies and data controllers within the
APCOA group, including but not limited to:
>
> [indent]– APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd
> – APCOA Parking Holdings (UK) Ltd
> – APCOA Facilities Management (UK) Ltd
> – APCOA Parking Services Ltd
> – APCOA Parking Group GmbH (as the parent company)
> – Any other UK or EEA-based subsidiaries, affiliates, or
contractors acting as data processors or controllers on behalf
of the APCOA group[/indent]
>
> Requester (data subject) information
>
> (a) Full name:
> (b) Address:
> (c) Email address:
> (d) Telephone number:
> (e) PCN number:
> (f) VRM:
>
> Requested information
>
> [indent](a) Copies of my personal data
>
> I request that I am provided with full copies of all personal
data relating to me which is held by the APCOA group as outlined
above. I would prefer to receive an electronic copy of the
requested information.
>
> (b) Purpose of the processing
>
> Please confirm within your response the purpose(s) for which
my personal data was collected and processed by any part of the
APCOA group.
>
> (c) Categories of the data
>
> Please confirm which categories of my personal data have been
collected or processed by any APCOA group company.
>
> (d) Sharing of the data
>
> Please confirm which recipients (including any third parties)
my personal data has been or may be disclosed to. This includes
disclosure to debt collection agencies, solicitors, or
international entities. Please also confirm whether any data has
been transferred outside the UK and, if so, the applicable
safeguards in place.
>
> (e) Storage of the data
>
> Please provide the applicable data retention periods, or if no
specific period is available, the criteria used to determine
such periods.
>
> (f) Source of the data
>
> Please confirm the original source(s) of the data held about
me.
>
> (g) Details about automated decision-making
>
> Please advise whether any automated decision-making has taken
place using my data and provide full details of the logic
involved and potential effects of such decisions.
>
> (h) Existence of my rights
>
> Please confirm my rights in respect of this data, including
the rights to rectification, erasure, restriction, and objection
to processing.[/indent]
>
> Responding to my request
>
> The above contains all necessary information in order for you
to process my request and any delay by yourselves will not
absolve you from providing me with the information within one
calendar month of the date above as this is being sent to you as
an attachment by email.
>
> I believe that the information which has been requested should
be readily available to you.
>
> This request should not therefore fall within the legal
definition of an excessive or manifestly unfounded request and
should not attract any processing fee.
>
> I would be grateful for your assistance in processing my
request within the required one month period of your receipt.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Full Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 65912--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - No Valid Payment - Railway Byelaws Bedford Station
DIR By: G6PRK
Date: April 7, 2025, 5:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for that [member=26]b789[/member].
Within about 20 minutes of sending the follow up this morning I
got a response to my previous email:
--- Quote ---
> Dear [Name],
>
> We are currently reviewing the points raised in your complaint
and a full response will be issued to your complaint in due
course.
>
> Thank you for your patience during this time
>
> Kind regards,
> [Name]
> Complaints Handler
> APCOA
--- End Quote ---
Good old 'due course'.
#Post#: 69369--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - No Valid Payment - Railway Byelaws Bedford Station
DIR By: G6PRK
Date: April 30, 2025, 8:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member] two updates I'd appreciate your
thoughts on...
1. They've finally responded to my complaint (on Saturday) with
[I]some[/I] level of depth. Where would you suggest I go from
here? The PNs are all cancelled so I don't have anything to gain
in that regard, but keen to keep pressing them on their
inadequacies.
--- Quote ---
> Thank you for your patience whilst this has been investigated.
>
> • Why are you, an unregulated private parking company, issuing
fake “Penalty Notices” designed to mislead motorists into
believing you possess statutory or criminal enforcement powers
which you clearly do not?
>
> APCOA operate under and are regulated by the British Parking
Association (BPA) and agree to adhere to the sector single code
of practice.
>
> We can confirm that this Penalty Notice is issued as a civil
matter. The penalty notice system is an established mechanism
designed to address breaches of the railway byelaws in a way
that is proportionate and fair. These notices are not intended
to suggest criminal intent or prosecution at the outset but to
offer the opportunity to resolve matters without escalation.
Should the recipient fail to engage or resolve the matter,
criminal enforcement under Byelaw 14(1) may be pursued.
>
>
> • Why are you attempting to rely on Railway Byelaws to justify
civil enforcement of minor parking indiscretions, despite
knowing full well that such matters do not fall within the scope
of criminal prosecution under Byelaw 24(1)?
> •Additionally, your use of the term “Penalty Notice”, coupled
with the implied criminal consequences, is highly misleading.
You are not a prosecuting authority, and your notice cannot be
lawfully construed as anything more than a speculative civil
invoice. Its presentation—suggesting legal obligation and
criminal liability—appears to constitute a breach of Section 2
of the Fraud Act 2006, namely:
>
> “False representation made dishonestly and with intent to make
a gain or cause loss.”
>
>
> In other words, this was an attempt at extortion by deception.
>
> The term “Penalty Notice” is used because the breach of
railway byelaws, such as unauthorised parking, constitutes a
potential statutory offence. This is entirely different from a
private parking charge, as our notices pertain to statutory
enforcement of the byelaws, which may involve criminal liability
in some cases. The presentation of the notice reflects the legal
process in place, and it has been reviewed and approved to
ensure compliance with the applicable legal standards.
>
>
> • Why are you directing recipients to a private appeals
process in circumstances where you are claiming a statutory
breach? Appeals panels have no jurisdiction over alleged
criminal offences.
>
> It is important to clarify that while the alleged breach may
indeed involve a potential criminal offence under the railway
byelaws, the appeals process we reference is an administrative
review mechanism designed to ensure that the matter is properly
investigated, and the correct party is held accountable.
> In accordance with the enforcement procedures under Byelaw 14
of the Railway Byelaws, the appeals process is a non-judicial
review that allows recipients to challenge the validity of the
charge based on the circumstances surrounding the alleged
breach. This process provides an opportunity for the train
operating company or relevant authority to review whether the
penalty notice was appropriately issued, and for any mitigating
factors to be considered.
> It is important to note that this appeals process does not
alter or replace the statutory provisions under the byelaws. If
the matter proceeds beyond the appeals stage, it may be referred
for criminal prosecution if deemed necessary. The appeals
process, therefore, acts as a preliminary step in ensuring that
no unfair or incorrect penalties are applied, rather than
replacing or overstepping the jurisdiction of the criminal
justice system.
> Any decision made by POPLA is only binding on the car park
operator and therefore the use of this independent appeals
service benefits the consumer/motorist.
>
>
> • Why are you asserting that you have a legal basis to infer
vehicle ownership from DVLA registered keeper data, when this is
explicitly contradicted by the front page of the V5C and by DVLA
guidance?
> • Why are your communications inconsistent as to who you
believe is liable—at times addressing the keeper, at other times
the driver or “owner”—with no coherent explanation?
>
> Our access to DVLA data is governed by the Keeper at Date of
Event (KADOE) contract, which permits APCOA to request the
registered keeper’s details for the purpose of enforcing parking
terms and conditions or pursuing relevant offences.
>
> While the V5C document does indicate that being the registered
keeper is not proof of ownership in itself, there is a legal
presumption that the registered keeper is the owner of the
vehicle unless evidence to the contrary is provided. This is
reflected in the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, which
defines an “owner” as the person by whom the vehicle is kept. In
the case of a registered vehicle, this is presumed to be the
person in whose name the vehicle is registered.
>
> Accordingly, when investigating a breach of the railway
byelaws, and in the absence of any information suggesting
otherwise, it is both reasonable and appropriate for us to
correspond with the registered keeper as the presumed owner of
the vehicle. Under contract law, only the driver can be liable
as they are present when the parking contract is both offered
and accepted. However, under the Railway Byelaws, it is made
clear that the owner is the liable party.
>
>
> • Why are your communications inconsistent as to what
contravention is even alleged to have taken place?
>
> The Penalty Notice clearly states that the Penalty Notice was
issued for the offence of "Use of private car park without
making a valid payment". Whilst payment was made for the parking
session, the payment is deemed as invalid as the incorrect
tariff was paid.
>
> The ANPR systems captured the vehicle entering Bedford Station
car park at 07:31:29 meaning that the full one day tariff of
£11.30 was due, however, as payment was only made at 13:08:38
the incorrect tariff of £4.60 was paid due to the off peak
tariff being activated at 10:00am.
>
>
> • What failing occurred that allowed your customer service
team to ignore straightforward questions from a customer
attempting to resolve the matter?
> • Why do different members of your staff have conflicting
views on what information it is appropriate to disclose to a
customer?
>
> The chat transcripts have been reviewed by APCOA management
and has been found to be below the high standards that APCOA
work to. As a result, an internal investigation has been
conducted and a conclusion is that the fails were due to
insufficient training of the customer service agents who handled
your queries. The agents involved have now been given the
required additional training.
>
> Whilst we’re unable to comment on internal processes and their
outcomes, rest assured the level of customer service given to
all customers, and the conduct of all APCOA staff is a top
priority and as such, we are treating this matter extremely
seriously.
>
>
> APCOA would like to take this opportunity to thank you for
bringing this to our attention and also offer our sincere
apologies for the less than satisfactory level of customer
service that you received on this occasion.
>
>
>
> • Given I was told that information was disclosed to me which
"shouldn’t have been", what assurances can you provide that my
personal data—and that of your other customers—is being handled
lawfully and securely?
> • On what lawful basis under the UK GDPR are you processing
and storing my personal data?
>
> We can confirm that your personal data has been redacted from
the below cases:
>
>
> Please see below links to both APCOA's privacy policy and data
protection policy which outline how APCOA handles your personal
data.
>
> APCOA Privacy Policy -
HTML https://www.apcoa.co.uk/privacy-policy/
> APCOA Data Protection Policy -
HTML https://www.apcoa.co.uk/index.php?id=6296
>
> If you have any concerns or queries relating to how APCOA have
handled your details, you can contact our Data Protection Office
via email on DPO@apcoa.com
>
> Kind regards,
> Complaints Handler
> APCOA
--- End Quote ---
2. They have just today, 27 days after submitting my SAR,
responded as follows. They are asking me to fill a form (which I
won't do) and demanding V5C and ID. The V5C seems completely
unneccesary, and suggesting the 30 days starts from this point
seems completely unreasonable.
--- Quote ---
> Good Afternoon,
>
> Thank you for your email to the Data Protection Office at
APCOA Parking (UK).
>
> Please complete the attached form and return in order that we
can provide the requested information.
>
> Please be advised that you are not obliged to complete this
form to make a request, but it’s helpful for us to know what
you’re looking for so we can respond fully and promptly.
Although the completion of this form is not a requirement, proof
of identification is still required. The timescale for
responding to your request will start when we receive this.
>
> Yours Sincerely,
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 69374--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - No Valid Payment - Railway Byelaws Bedford Station
DIR By: b789
Date: April 30, 2025, 8:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Did you send the email to your MP?
That response to your complaint to APCOA is damning for them:
[indent]• They explicitly call it a "Penalty Notice", while also
admitting it is “a civil matter.” That contradicts the statutory
basis implied by the term.
• They claim criminal prosecution is only a possibility if
people “fail to engage”—a pressure tactic with no legal
substance if they never intend to prosecute.
• They state they are enforcing private contractual terms—not
statutory offences—but do so under the guise of Byelaw 14
enforcement.
• They collect and retain revenue for themselves or the
landowner, not the Treasury, proving these are not legitimate
statutory penalties.[/indent]
This completely undermines any claim that these are lawful
statutory fines. As I stated, fraud by false representation
under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 is arguably engaged, and
DVLA data was clearly accessed and processed under a false
pretext.
For now, make a formal complaint to the DVLA.
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:
--- Quote ---
> I am submitting a formal complaint against APCOA Parking (UK)
Ltd, a BPA AOS member with DVLA KADOE access, for breaching the
Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and
misusing my personal data obtained from the DVLA.
>
> While APCOA may have had reasonable cause to request my data
initially, they subsequently used it to issue a document titled
“Penalty Notice” that falsely implied criminal liability and
statutory enforcement under railway byelaws. However, in
response to a formal complaint, APCOA have now explicitly
admitted that their notices are in fact civil in nature, and
that they are relying on private contract law to justify
enforcement and collection.
>
> This is a damning admission that they accessed DVLA data on
the false premise of pursuing a statutory offence, only to
repackage the enforcement as a civil matter once challenged.
This is a clear breach of the KADOE contract and the PPSCoP,
both of which prohibit misleading conduct and misuse of DVLA
data.
>
> The DVLA, as data controller, is responsible for ensuring that
personal data is not misused following its release under KADOE.
This complaint is not about the initial access to my data, but
rather the subsequent unlawful use of it once it became clear
that the operator had no legal basis to pursue a penalty under
the statutory regime.
>
> I have attached a supporting statement and request a full
investigation. Please confirm receipt and provide a reference
number for this complaint.
--- End Quote ---
Then you could upload the following as a PDF file for the formal
complaint itself:
--- Quote ---
> SUPPORTING STATEMENT
>
> Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP
>
> Operator name: APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd
> Date of Penalty Notice issue: [INSERT DATE]
> Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]
>
> I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my
personal data by APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd, who obtained my keeper
details from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event)
contract.
>
> While APCOA may have had reasonable cause to request my data
initially, they subsequently used it to issue a document styled
as a “Penalty Notice” for an alleged breach of Railway Byelaws.
The notice mimicked the form and language of a statutory
penalty, implied criminal liability, and threatened escalation
under Byelaw 14(1).
>
> However, in a formal written complaint response dated [INSERT
DATE], APCOA made the following admissions:
>
> [indent]• The “Penalty Notice” is not a statutory enforcement
measure, but a civil matter based on private contract law.
> • Enforcement is pursued under contract law and not through
the railway byelaw criminal framework.
> • Revenue from the notice is retained by APCOA or the
landowner—not remitted to the public purse—confirming it is not
a fine issued by a prosecuting authority.[/indent]
>
> These admissions expose a clear deception: keeper data
obtained under the pretext of enforcing statutory railway
offences was instead used to pursue what APCOA now claims is a
private contractual matter. This amounts to a misuse of personal
data, a breach of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP), and a violation of the terms of the KADOE
contract.
>
> More seriously, this conduct raises significant concerns under
the Fraud Act 2006, specifically Section 2 – false
representation. APCOA knowingly represented a private civil
charge as a statutory “Penalty Notice” in order to induce
payment from a motorist under threat of criminal consequences.
This is not a minor procedural failing or mere miscommunication;
it is arguably a criminal offence, and it must be treated as
such.
>
> As the Data Controller, the DVLA bears direct responsibility
for ensuring that personal data it supplies under KADOE is:
>
> [indent]• Used lawfully and fairly
> • Not processed for misleading or deceptive purposes
> • Not used in ways that facilitate or support criminal
conduct[/indent]
>
> These responsibilities cannot be delegated or brushed aside.
Where there is evidence that a KADOE recipient has used personal
data in a manner that may constitute a criminal offence, the
DVLA must act—whether by initiating proceedings under the KADOE
contract, reporting the matter to enforcement agencies, or
revoking access to its data systems.
>
> I request that the DVLA take the following actions:
>
> [indent]• Investigate APCOA’s conduct in this case
> • Determine whether a breach of the KADOE contract and PPSCoP
has occurred
> • Refer the matter to the appropriate enforcement authority or
police, given the potential criminality under the Fraud Act
> • Suspend or terminate APCOA’s KADOE access if
warranted[/indent]
>
> The attached correspondence from APCOA constitutes direct
evidence of misrepresentation and unlawful processing. I trust
the DVLA will treat this complaint with the seriousness and
urgency that such conduct demands.
>
> Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]
> Date: [INSERT DATE]
--- End Quote ---
Attachments to Upload with the DVLA Complaint:
[indent]1. This PDF supporting statement
2. The APCOA complaint response email/letter (as proof of
admission)
3.The original PN issued by APCOA
#Post#: 69376--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - No Valid Payment - Railway Byelaws Bedford Station
DIR By: b789
Date: April 30, 2025, 8:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the SAR, a copy of the V5C is perfectly OK to use as
verification of ID. However, if you do not want to provide a
copy of that, I suggest you respond to the DPO with the
following:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Re: Subject Access Request – Reminder of Legal
Obligations
>
> Dear Data Protection Officer,
>
> Thank you for your response dated [INSERT DATE].
>
> While I appreciate the need for identity verification, I must
remind you that this request was submitted in my capacity as the
Keeper, and I have already corresponded with APCOA on this
matter using the same name and address you originally obtained
from the DVLA.
>
> As such, you already have sufficient information to verify my
identity. If you require confirmation, a copy of that prior
correspondence can be provided to satisfy any reasonable
verification requirement. However, requesting a V5C document is
disproportionate in this context and not justified under Article
12(6) of the UK GDPR.
>
> You are therefore reminded that:
>
> [indent]• I submitted a valid Subject Access Request on
[INSERT DATE].
> • The 30-day statutory period began on that date, not from
when you receive additional documents you arbitrarily demand.
> • Your continued delay in responding may amount to a breach of
the UK GDPR.[/indent]
>
> I expect the SAR to be processed without further obstruction.
If no response is provided within the statutory timeframe, I
will refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office
without further notice.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page