URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 68709--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Assistance with POPLA
   DIR By: td89
       Date: April 25, 2025, 4:38 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Ah f*** I wish I had, it's now coming up as expired. Bugger.
       Guess I just wait for the DCBL letter of claim or pay up?
       #Post#: 68750--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Assistance with POPLA
   DIR By: b789
       Date: April 26, 2025, 4:41 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Why would you "pay up" to a firm of utter incompetents? POPLA is
       nit the be all and end all. Even if they had rejected an appeal,
       their decision is not binding on you and has no impact
       whatsoever on anything going forwards.
       Whilst waiting for the usual useless debt recovery letters which
       you can safely ignore and we don't need to know about, you
       should submit 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 Britannia Parking,
       a BPA Approved Operator Scheme (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.
       --- 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: Britannia Parking
       > 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.
       >
       > I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my
       personal data by Britannia Parking, who obtained my keeper
       details from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event)
       contract.
       >
       > Although Britannia Parking 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, Britannia Parking has breached the PPSCoP in the
       following ways:
       >
       > [indent]• They failed to properly consider my appeal dated
       18/03/2025, which raised specific breaches of the Protection of
       Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), namely:
       >
       > [indent]• Failure to include the mandatory keeper invitation
       wording (PoFA 9(2)(e)(i));
       > • Inaccurate payment deadlines (PoFA 9(2)(f));
       > • Failure to identify clearly the creditor (PoFA 9(2)(h));
       > • Doubt as to whether the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was posted on
       the stated date (PoFA 9(4)).[/indent]
       >
       > • Instead of engaging with the substance of my appeal,
       Britannia Parking issued a boilerplate response dated
       20/03/2025, failing to address the points raised, suggesting
       either no review was conducted or a deliberate disregard of
       their obligations under the PPSCoP.
       > • The response contained irrelevant text concerning ANPR
       maintenance, consideration periods, insurance, and BPA audits,
       none of which were raised in my appeal.
       > • This amounts to a failure to offer a fair, transparent, and
       proper appeals process as required under Section 11 of the
       PPSCoP.[/indent]
       >
       > 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]
       --- End Quote ---
       #Post#: 80597--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Assistance with POPLA
   DIR By: td89
       Date: July 11, 2025, 9:02 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thanks, I've logged a DVLA complaint.
       I've also had the DCB Legal letter come through now, please see
       attached. Should I submit an acknowledgement of service?
       [attachment deleted by admin]
       #Post#: 80707--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Assistance with POPLA
   DIR By: b789
       Date: July 12, 2025, 8:24 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Just email the following to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC 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.
       >
       > I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to
       identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal
       presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any
       particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as
       per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C]
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yvxek3kfwtb3qent3lj6y/VCS-Limited-v-Ian-Mark-Edward-H0KF6C9C.pdf?rlkey=niecohfdtj1n1ysh5prbsp52p&e=1&dl=0.
       >
       > If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the
       Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me
       liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. The initial Notice
       to Keeper was not received, as I had moved address and the V5C
       logbook had not yet been updated with the DVLA at the time of
       the alleged contravention. As such, no PoFA-compliant NtK was
       served within the timeframes required by paragraph 9(5) of the
       Act. Even if your client were to issue or re-send a copy now, it
       would be well outside the statutory period and would not remedy
       the defect. Your client is therefore unable to rely on PoFA to
       establish keeper liability.
       >
       > As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would
       be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a
       claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and
       seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and
       vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)
       >
       > 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 ---
       When they respond without providing all the requested
       evidence/documentation, you can report them to the SRA.
       #Post#: 80760--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Assistance with POPLA
   DIR By: td89
       Date: July 13, 2025, 3:25 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thanks, should I remove this part as I had not moved address?
       --- Quote ---
       >
       > If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the
       Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me
       liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. The initial Notice
       to Keeper was not received, as I had moved address and the V5C
       logbook had not yet been updated with the DVLA at the time of
       the alleged contravention. As such, no PoFA-compliant NtK was
       served within the timeframes required by paragraph 9(5) of the
       Act. Even if your client were to issue or re-send a copy now, it
       would be well outside the statutory period and would not remedy
       the defect. Your client is therefore unable to rely on PoFA to
       establish keeper liability.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       #Post#: 80768--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Assistance with POPLA
   DIR By: b789
       Date: July 13, 2025, 4:40 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Yes. Remove that. My bad for copy and pasting without reviewing.
       #Post#: 84574--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Assistance with POPLA
   DIR By: td89
       Date: August 7, 2025, 7:19 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I’ve now had the stock email reply from DCB Legal, pasted below.
       Attached were the Britannia appeal/response, original PCN, and
       photographs of the vehicle entering and leaving the car park.
       Could you advise the next steps? I have not replied.
       --- Quote ---
       >
       > We write in response to your correspondence received in our
       office dated 21/07/2025.
       > We now respond to the same as follows.
       >
       > It is our position that the Letter of Claim (“LOC”) is
       compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (“the
       Protocol”). The LOC provides adequate information for you to
       identify the debt that our Client is seeking to recover. We
       would respectfully draw your attention to paragraph 2.1(c) of
       the Protocol and remind you that both parties are expected to
       act reasonably and proportionately.
       >
       > For the avoidance of doubt, please note that the timeframe in
       which to appeal the Parking Charge has expired. You were given
       the opportunity to lodge an appeal when the initial Notice was
       issued to you. Given that the case has been escalated to this
       firm for recovery action, the time to appeal has now elapsed and
       payment of the Parking Charge(s) is now required.
       >
       > The amount owed is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses
       incurred in managing the parking location to ensure compliance
       with the clearly displayed terms and conditions. Further, in
       accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of
       Practice, where the Parking Charge becomes overdue and before
       Court proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum may be added
       for the debt recovery fees. The correct recovery fees have been
       added and will not be removed, for completeness we would advise
       that the fee is not inclusive of any VAT, as it does not pertain
       to a supply of goods/services between you and our Client.
       >
       > To clarify, when parking on private land, the contractual
       terms of the site are set out on the signs. You are thus
       entering into a contract (by way of conduct) and agreeing to the
       terms by parking and staying on the site. Parking in breach of
       the terms as stipulated on the signage means that you are then
       breaking the terms of the contract.
       >
       > Attached are copies of evidence pertaining to the matter,
       however, if there are any documents that you have requested, but
       that are not attached, it is because we have deemed the request
       to be disproportionate and/or not relevant to the substantive
       issues in dispute. We respectfully draw your attention to
       paragraph 2.1(c) of the Protocol and remind you that both
       parties are expected to act reasonably and proportionately.
       >
       > You now have 30 days from the date of this email to make
       payment of £170.00. Failure to make payment will result in a
       Claim being issued against you without any further reference.
       > Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client
       account: -
       >
       > Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account
       > Sort Code: 20-24-09
       > Account Number: 60964441
       >
       > You must quote the correct case reference (removed) when
       making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly
       allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a
       result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be
       liable for any further fees or costs incurred.
       >
       > Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038
       to make payment over the telephone or online at
  HTML https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       #Post#: 84617--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Assistance with POPLA
   DIR By: b789
       Date: August 7, 2025, 10:51 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Respond with the following:
       --- Quote ---
       > Subject: Re: Your Pre-Action Conduct and Anticipated Claim
       >
       > Dear Sirs,
       >
       > Thank you for your response dated [insert date].
       >
       > It is clear from your refusal to provide documents and
       information as required by the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt
       Claims and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct, that
       your client has no intention of complying with its legal
       obligations.
       >
       > You have been formally put on notice that the alleged debt is
       denied, and that no liability exists either as driver or under
       Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Despite being
       given the opportunity to clarify the basis of your client's
       claim and provide relevant documentation, you have elected to
       rely on vague assertions and minimal evidence.
       >
       > Should your client now proceed to issue a claim without curing
       the breaches already identified, I will:
       >
       > [indent]• Apply for a stay or strike-out due to your client’s
       non-compliance with the Protocol,
       > • Seek recovery of my costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g), and
       > • Refer the court to the principles in Webb Resolutions Ltd v
       Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), among
       others.[/indent]
       >
       > Your client will bear responsibility for any costs incurred as
       a result of issuing a knowingly deficient claim. I trust this
       now concludes pre-action correspondence.
       >
       > Yours faithfully,
       >
       > [Your Name]
       --- End Quote ---
       #Post#: 84620--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Assistance with POPLA
   DIR By: td89
       Date: August 7, 2025, 11:04 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you, I have replied as such.
       *****************************************************
       Page 2 of 2
   DIR Previous Page