DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 66972--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN for leased car at Wing Yip Cricklewood London
DIR By: b789
Date: April 14, 2025, 4:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'd respond to Set with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Re: POP1 421567/406 – Mischaracterisation of Civil
Parking Notice as Criminal Offencee
>
> Dear Customer Operations,
>
> I refer to the two recent letters received from SEAT Financial
Services, including your correspondence dated 01/04/2025
concerning a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from UKPS Limited.
>
> With the greatest respect, the legal and factual errors
contained in your letters are so numerous and severe that I feel
compelled to respond. It is astonishing that your organisation—a
financial services firm responsible for vehicle leasing—has
issued correspondence referring to:
>
> [indent]• A Parking Charge Notice (a speculative invoice from
a private company)
> • as a “Driving Offence”,
> • and the issuing company, UKPS Limited, as an
“authority.”[/indent]
>
> There is no ambiguity here. UKPS Limited is not a public
authority. They are a private entity. A PCN from such a company
is a civil matter relating to an alleged breach of contract, not
a criminal or statutory offence. Your description of this as an
“offence” and referral to an “authority” is not just
inaccurate—it is outright misleading. If this letter were placed
before a regulator or ombudsman, I expect they would share my
view that this language amounts to misrepresentation.
>
> Furthermore, your earlier letter implies that SEAT Financial
Services may be held liable for a PCN under the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Again, I must remind you that Schedule
4, Paragraph 13 of the Act sets out a clear mechanism whereby
the liability of a hire company as keeper is fully discharged
once hirer details and a copy of the hire agreement are
provided. That provision exists precisely so hire companies like
yours are not liable provided you follow the correct process.
Your apparent unfamiliarity with this basic point raises serious
concerns.
>
> This appears to be a case where your staff are issuing
template responses without any understanding of the legal
framework—or worse, fabricating authority where none exists. It
would benefit your organisation to ensure that any staff
involved in this area receive basic training in the following
areas:
>
> [indent]1. The difference between civil and criminal matters;
> 2. The non-statutory nature of private parking companies;
> 3. The correct interpretation of liability under Schedule 4 of
PoFA 2012, particularly Paragraph 13;
> 4. The risk of misrepresentation where false references to
“offences” and “authorities” are made.[/indent]
>
> To prevent any further confusion or misrepresentation:
>
> [indent]• Please confirm that SEAT Financial Services will not
pay any speculative invoices issued by a private parking firm on
my behalf without my explicit consent.
> • Please confirm that my details have only been passed to the
issuing company, not to any statutory authority or enforcement
body.
> • Please ensure future communications do not mischaracterise
civil PCNs as “offences” or refer to private companies as
“authorities.”[/indent]
>
> If you are unable or unwilling to correct these serious
procedural and legal failings, I will not hesitate to escalate
this matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the DVLA,
given your role in handling sensitive registered keeper data
under KADOE arrangements.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 67382--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN for leased car at Wing Yip Cricklewood London
DIR By: dfwtolhr
Date: April 16, 2025, 9:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks all!
Particularly b789. I will send that response to SEAT
#Post#: 67406--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN for leased car at Wing Yip Cricklewood London
DIR By: dfwtolhr
Date: April 16, 2025, 11:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile I have now received correspondence from UKPS
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 67437--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN for leased car at Wing Yip Cricklewood London
DIR By: b789
Date: April 16, 2025, 1:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll bet the lying bar stewards at UKPS did not include the
copies of the documents they claim they have included with their
Notice to Hirer (NtH).
I would appeal with the following:
--- Quote ---
> APPEAL FROM HIRER – NO LIABILITY ADMITTED
>
> I am the Hirer of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this
Parking Charge and will not be identifying the driver.
>
> Your Notice to Hirer falsely claims compliance with Paragraph
13(2) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(PoFA). It states that the required documents were enclosed, yet
none of the following four statutory documents were included:
>
> [indent](a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the
vehicle-hire firm confirming that the vehicle was hired to a
named person at the material time;
> (b) A copy of the hire agreement;
> (c) A copy of the statement of liability signed by the Hirer
under that agreement;
> (d) A copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the hire
company.[/indent]
>
> This is not an oversight. The statement in your NtH that these
documents were enclosed is a deliberately mendacious. This is
not the first time UKPS have been observed issuing NtHs that
falsely assert compliance with PoFA. Multiple such cases have
now been documented. Your company has been repeatedly caught
engaging in this dishonest and unlawful practice.
>
> Your conduct is a clear abuse of DVLA data, obtained on the
false premise that you have a lawful basis to pursue the Hirer.
You do not.
>
> You are now formally notified that this incident is being
reported to the DVLA’s Data Sharing Team, along with supporting
evidence, as a breach of the terms and conditions under which
access to registered keeper data is granted. A parallel report
will be submitted to the Information Commissioner’s Office under
the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018, on the grounds that
you are processing personal data unlawfully, without a valid
basis in law.
>
> You will be expected to respond to both the DVLA and the ICO
and may face sanctions, including the suspension or permanent
revocation of your access to DVLA data.
>
> This charge is rejected outright. There is no Hirer liability.
Do not contact me again unless you are confirming cancellation
or dare to try and litigate this matter
--- End Quote ---
You really are dealing with a rogue firm of ex-clamper thugs who
clearly do not hesitate to lie and threaten. Report them to the
DVLA and the ICO.
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 UK Parking
Solutions Ltd (UKPS), an IPC 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: UK Parking Solutions Ltd (UKPS)
> Date of PCN issue: [INSERT DATE]
> Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]
>
> I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my
personal data by UK Parking Solutions Ltd (UKPS), 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, UKPS has breached the PPSCoP in the following
way:
>
> [indent]They issued a Notice to Hirer which falsely stated
that it enclosed all four documents required under Paragraph
13(2) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(PoFA). In reality, none of these documents were enclosed. These
documents are:
>
> [indent](a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the
vehicle-hire firm confirming that the vehicle was hired to a
named person;
> (b) a copy of the hire agreement;
> (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer
under that agreement;
> (d) a copy of the Notice to Keeper issued to the hire
company.[/indent][/indent]
>
> This was not an accidental omission. The NtH explicitly stated
that the documents were enclosed, meaning UKPS have made a
deliberate false representation of PoFA compliance. This is a
known pattern of conduct by UKPS, with other documented cases
now emerging. It amounts to a clear abuse of DVLA data and an
attempt to mislead vehicle hirers into assuming liability where
no legal basis exists.
>
> 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#: 67452--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN for leased car at Wing Yip Cricklewood London
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 16, 2025, 3:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> I'll bet the lying bar stewards at UKPS did not include the
copies of the documents they claim they have included with their
Notice to Hirer (NtH).
>
--- End Quote ---
A perhaps obvious point, but OP, please confirm if any
additional documents were enclosed with UKPS' correspondence,
other than the one you have already shown us.
#Post#: 67526--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN for leased car at Wing Yip Cricklewood London
DIR By: dfwtolhr
Date: April 17, 2025, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No other documents were enclosed.
I will appeal and complain to DVLA
#Post#: 68072--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN for leased car at Wing Yip Cricklewood London
DIR By: dfwtolhr
Date: April 22, 2025, 8:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just received the following reply to my appeal to UKPS by email.
They say they have attached the transfer of liability in the
email but there were no attachments. :-\
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 68079--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN for leased car at Wing Yip Cricklewood London
DIR By: b789
Date: April 22, 2025, 8:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ignore. They have not responded to your appeal. They have failed
to include the copies of the required documents with the
original NtH.
They cannot go back to SEAT if you do nothing. Liability has
been transferred. Unless they send you a formal rejection of
your appeal, there is nothing more you can do for now. Just keep
track of all the correspondence and timeline.
This is going to end when they eventually issue a claim which
you will defend with our assistance and it will eventually be
struck out or discontinued.
#Post#: 68436--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN for leased car at Wing Yip Cricklewood London
DIR By: dfwtolhr
Date: April 24, 2025, 7:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Response from Seat(Vw)
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 68446--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN for leased car at Wing Yip Cricklewood London
DIR By: b789
Date: April 24, 2025, 8:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Duh! Respond as follows:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Re: Mischaracterisation of PCN 3745727 – Formal
Response Required
>
> Dear Lauren Spurway,
>
> Thank you for your response regarding PCN 3745727.
>
> However, your latest correspondence regrettably continues to
propagate the same fundamental errors and mischaracterisations
found in the original letters from SEAT Financial Services.
>
> To reiterate, UKPS Ltd is not a statutory authority. It is a
private parking operator, and any Parking Charge Notice it
issues is a civil matter, not a criminal or statutory offence.
To describe the matter as a “fine” or refer to UKPS as the
“issuing authority” is demonstrably incorrect and potentially
misleading under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading
Regulations 2008.
>
> You state:
>
> [indent]"We would kindly request that the fine is settled
directly with UKPS Ltd. Alternatively, if you believe the fine
has been incorrectly issued you will need to appeal directly
with the issuing authority."[/indent]
>
> This conflates Penalty Charge Notices, issued under statutory
enforcement regimes by public bodies, with Parking Charge
Notices, which are non-statutory invoices issued under contract
law by private companies. The terms are not interchangeable.
>
> Furthermore, your suggestion that "we have not made any
payment for this fine" is appreciated—but it is troubling that
your policies seem to allow for unauthorised payment of
non-statutory invoices on a customer's behalf. As you are aware
(or ought to be), Schedule 4 Paragraph 13 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 allows a vehicle hire company to transfer
liability by providing the required hirer information and a copy
of the hire agreement. If this has been done, then no liability
remains with Volkswagen Financial Services, and certainly no
payment should be made.
>
> Accordingly, I request the following:
>
> [indent]• Written confirmation that your organisation
understands that a Parking Charge Notice from UKPS Ltd is not a
fine, not a statutory matter, and does not originate from a
public authority.
> • A correction of your internal templates and procedures to
ensure future correspondence does not refer to civil invoices as
“offences” or “fines”, nor describe private companies as
“authorities”.
> • Confirmation that no further speculative invoices will be
paid without the express written consent of the hirer,
particularly where Paragraph 13 compliance has been achieved.
> • Written assurance that the terms and conditions you refer to
do not permit unilateral payment of private parking charges—only
statutory fines where liability cannot be transferred.[/indent]
>
> If your response fails to address these points appropriately,
I will consider raising a formal complaint with the Financial
Ombudsman Service, and if necessary, with the Information
Commissioner's Office (ICO), given your responsibilities as the
registered keeper and data controller under UK data protection
law, and the serious risk of misrepresentation in your
correspondence with the hirer.
>
> Please treat this as a formal complaint unless resolved
satisfactorily.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Full Name]
> [Agreement Reference Number]
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page