DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 64619--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL letter for private parking tickets - no permit - high
street, watford
DIR By: b789
Date: March 28, 2025, 8:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They sent the original letter to the Registered Keeper (RK).
They had no idea of the name of the driver, even though it is
the driver that is liable for the charge. Hence the reason you
should never reveal the identity of the driver. Whenever
communication about this, the Keeper should always refer to the
driver in the third person. No "I did this other that". Only
"the driver did this or that".
So, if you were not the driver, as far as you recall, did you
give them the name and address of the driver?
The PCN you have received is not PoFA complaint because the
Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not given within the proscribed
period. PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(4) states:
[indent]“The notice must be given by—sending it by post to a
current address for service for the keeper so that it is
delivered to that address within the relevant period.”[/indent]
PoFA paragraph 8(5) then states:
[indent]"The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph
(4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days
beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver
was given."[/indent]
Date Calculation
[incent]• NtD given: 17 September 2024
• Day 1: 17 September 2024
• NtK earliest permissible: 15 October 2024 (Day 29)
• NtK latest permissible: 12 November 2024 (Day 56)[/indent]
So, NtK issued: 15 November 2024. Issued after Day 56. Not PoFA
compliant, no Keeper liability, as long as the Keeper has not
outed themself to be the driver.
Also, the reminder notice dated dated 23rd October 2024, titled
"Notice to Owner/Keeper of Intended Court Action to Recover a
Private Parking Charge" breaches several rules in the BPA/IPC
Private Parking Single Code of Practice PPSCoP).
First, section 8.1.2 says that parking operators must not send
notices or use language that:
[indent]a) suggests they have statutory authority when they do
not,
b) looks like a penalty charge notice from a local authority, or
c) uses banned words listed in Annex E.[/indent]
Using the term "Notice to Owner" is misleading because it is
used by councils under traffic law. This makes it look like an
official penalty when it's not. That breaks points (a) and (b)
of section 8.1.2.
Annex E.1 also says that notices must not use wording that
implies the parking charge is being enforced under the law when
it's actually a private matter. It also says notices must not
pressure the person into making a payment or decision they
wouldn’t otherwise make.
The phrase "Intended Court Action" gives that impression,
especially if court action hasn't actually been started yet.
Annex E.2 lists banned words and phrases. While "Notice to
Owner" isn’t listed specifically, the guidance makes clear that
operators shouldn’t copy the style or terms used in statutory
penalty notices.
Finally, Annex H says that using misleading or banned wording on
letters is a Level 3 breach of the Code. This is serious and can
lead to 9 sanction points, which is enough to trigger a
suspension from the trade body.
So, the title "Notice to Owner/Keeper of Intended Court Action"
is misleading and breaks several parts of the Code. You should
submit a formal complaint to OPC in order to be able to make a
formal complaint about them to the BPA. I suggest you copy and
paste the following into their complaints webform here:
HTML https://observices.co.uk/complaints-procedure.htm
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal Complaint – Misleading and Non-Compliant
Terminology in Correspondence Dated 23 October 2024
>
> To: Observices Parking Consultancy Ltd (OPC)
> From: [Your Full Name]
> Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
> PCN Reference: 142624
> Date of Notice: 23 October 2024
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I write to raise a formal complaint concerning your letter
dated 23 October 2024, titled “Notice to Owner/Keeper of
Intended Court Action to Recover a Private Parking Charge”,
relating to an alleged incident on 17 September 2024 at r/o 8
The Parade, High Street, Watford.
>
> The document you issued is misleading and appears to breach
several provisions of the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice v1.1 (17 February 2025).
>
> In particular, I draw your attention to the following:
>
> Section 8.1.2 (Design and language)
>
> The use of the heading “Notice to Owner” mimics official
terminology used by local authorities when issuing statutory
penalty charge notices. This falsely implies a statutory basis
for enforcement and is strictly prohibited. The same section
also prohibits language that resembles a public authority
penalty notice or misrepresents the legal status of the charge.
>
> Annex E.1 (General terminology)
>
> This prohibits the use of language which causes the recipient
to assume that the charge is being enforced under statutory
authority when it is not. Furthermore, it prohibits the use of
terminology that applies undue pressure or causes the recipient
to take action they otherwise would not.
>
> Annex H (Sanction Scheme)
>
> The use of misleading or prohibited terminology in
correspondence is a Level 3 non-conformance, which carries up to
9 sanction points and may lead to suspension from your
Accredited Trade Association.
>
> You are reminded that the Private Parking Code is binding upon
members of the BPA and DVLA’s release of keeper data is
conditional upon your adherence to it.
>
> This complaint is made in accordance with Section 11 of the
PPSCoP. I request that you acknowledge this letter as a formal
complaint and confirm in writing the outcome of your internal
complaints process. If I do not receive a satisfactory
resolution within 14 days, I will escalate the matter to the
British Parking Association for investigation under the Code.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Full Name]
--- End Quote ---
You should also make a formal complaint to the DVLA because they
have breached the PPSCoP and therefore their DVLA KADOE
contract.
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#: 64624--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL letter for private parking tickets - no permit - high
street, watford
DIR By: jafferraza1
Date: March 28, 2025, 8:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you! I do have 2 similar tickets just issued in different
dates. Shall I add those to the complaint as well specifying the
dates in one email? Also when i spoke to OB services they
mentioned that the matter is now dealt with DCBL and I shouldn't
contact them at all.
#Post#: 64638--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL letter for private parking tickets - no permit - high
street, watford
DIR By: b789
Date: March 28, 2025, 9:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Each PCN should be a separate complaint. Fobbing you off to DCBL
is just a tactic that is designed to frustrate you. DCBL have
absolutely nothing to do with this. They are not a party to the
contract allegedly breached by the driver and are powerless to
actually do anything. Control of the matter rests solely with
the operator.
#Post#: 64732--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL letter for private parking tickets - no permit - high
street, watford
DIR By: jafferraza1
Date: March 29, 2025, 6:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[INSERT PPC NAME], an [INSERT IPC or BPA]. Is this going to be
the company name; OB Services and I can't figure out wether they
are a member of IPC or BPA?
#Post#: 64751--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL letter for private parking tickets - no permit - high
street, watford
DIR By: b789
Date: March 29, 2025, 8:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OPC is Observices Parking Consultancy Ltd and they are a BPA
member.
#Post#: 65243--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL letter for private parking tickets - no permit - high
street, watford
DIR By: jafferraza1
Date: April 1, 2025, 12:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you.
I've just received a response from OB services:
Thank you for your contact with OPC.
Our records show that PPC 142642 (*****) is now with DCBL,
therefore you would need to correspond with them directly.
Regards,
Appeals Department
OPC
#Post#: 65249--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCBL letter for private parking tickets - no permit - high
street, watford
DIR By: b789
Date: April 1, 2025, 12:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
DO you mean that that is their response to the formal complaint?
Write to the BPA and raise a formal complaint about them
directly.
Have you submitted the DVLA complaint yet?
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page