DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 69477--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN for leased car at Wing Yip Cricklewood London
DIR By: dfwtolhr
Date: April 30, 2025, 5:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> The best way to prove that you didn't receive these documents
is to prove that they weren't in the creditor's possession...to
do which you get a statement from VWFS.... by writing and asking
them.
>
--- End Quote ---
H C Anderson. What exactly am I asking SEAT here, what documents
they sent to UKPS?
#Post#: 69478--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN for leased car at Wing Yip Cricklewood London
DIR By: dfwtolhr
Date: April 30, 2025, 5:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Does the email you received with the appeal rejection show or
indicate that there were any attachments to it? If it can be
used as evidence of the lying behaviour of UKPS, then it should
be sent as additional evidence to a Step 2 complaint to the
DVLA. Don't send the Step 2 complaint if you can show that the
email you received shows or failed to show that there were any
attachments, as I would have to amend the wording slightly.
>
> To send the Step 2 complaint, you go through the same steps as
for there initial complaint except that the web address is:
>
>
HTML https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/head-of-complaints
>
> [quote]Subject: Step 2 Escalation – Misuse of Personal Data
and Deliberate Misrepresentation by UK Parking Solutions Ltd
(UKPS)
>
> Dear DVLA Head of Complaints,
>
> I am writing to escalate my complaint regarding the misuse of
my personal data by UK Parking Solutions Ltd (UKPS) to Step 2 of
your complaints process.
>
> This matter concerns not just technical breaches, but
deliberate misrepresentation by a DVLA-approved KADOE user,
acting in direct violation of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single
Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and the terms of the KADOE contract.
>
> Background
>
> As clarified in your Step 1 response, my data was not released
to UKPS by the DVLA directly, but was passed to them via a
Transfer of Liability by the vehicle’s registered keeper,
Volkswagen Financial Services UK Ltd.
>
> However, UKPS is a KADOE account holder, and the conditions of
use attached to KADOE data access apply regardless of how the
data was obtained. The purpose of the KADOE contract is to
ensure that AOS members process personal data lawfully,
proportionately, and in full compliance with the PPSCoP —
including when pursuing charges via hirer liability under
Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
>
> Substance of the Complaint – Deliberate False Representation
>
> UKPS issued a Notice to Hirer (NtH) which falsely states that
it encloses all four documents required under Paragraph 13(2) of
PoFA. In reality, none of these documents were enclosed. This
was not an accidental omission — the covering page explicitly
asserts that the documents are included, which makes this a
deliberate misrepresentation.
>
> This was not an isolated incident. UKPS has now repeated the
false claim in their written response to my appeal. They stated
that the Transfer of Liability was “attached,” when in fact
nothing was enclosed. This is consistent with the earlier Notice
to Hirer, which similarly claimed that four PoFA-mandated
documents were included — when they were not. The repeated
nature of these omissions, accompanied by false assertions that
the documents were provided, demonstrates deliberate
misrepresentation and unlawful data processing, not
administrative error. This is a clear abuse of DVLA-sourced
personal data, and one that warrants regulatory action.
>
> The effect of this is that UKPS is:
>
> [indent]• Asserting that the statutory requirements of PoFA
have been met (when they haven’t);
> • Knowingly processing personal data on a false legal basis;
> • Misleading the recipient about their liability in order to
extract payment.[/indent]
>
> This goes far beyond mere sloppiness. It is a calculated and
mendacious act designed to fabricate the appearance of PoFA
compliance and shift liability unlawfully.
>
> If the DVLA accepts such conduct at face value, then it is
allowing the integrity of the vehicle register to be undermined
by rogue operators. The PPSCoP and KADOE contract become
meaningless if operators can simply lie about their compliance
and continue to access and process personal data without
oversight or consequence.
>
> Recommendation
>
> Perhaps it is time the DVLA stops assuming that operators are
acting in good faith and starts investigating whether they are,
in fact, lying. I strongly suggest that the DVLA conduct a sting
operation — for example, by hiring a vehicle and deliberately
breaching a term in a car park operated by UKPS. The resulting
NtH is likely to contain the same false assertion that the
required documents are enclosed, when in reality they will not
be. This would serve as hard proof that the breach is systemic
and deliberate, not accidental.
>
> Request
>
> I am therefore asking the DVLA to:
>
> [indent]• Investigate whether UKPS’s actions amount to a
breach of the KADOE contract and PPSCoP;
> • Determine whether the deliberate false assertion of PoFA
compliance invalidates the legal basis for processing my
personal data;
> • Consider enforcement action including suspension or
termination of KADOE access if breaches are established;
> • Acknowledge that “self-certification” by operators is wholly
inadequate when clear evidence exists of falsified statutory
compliance.[/indent]
>
> Please confirm receipt of this escalation and provide a Step 2
complaint reference. I am happy to provide copies of the NtH and
supporting evidence again if required.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Full Name]
> [Original DVLA Complaint Date / Reference Number]
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
So the email contained none of the 4 required documents, and the
posted version only had the transfer of liability enclosed...
#Post#: 69521--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN for leased car at Wing Yip Cricklewood London
DIR By: b789
Date: May 1, 2025, 5:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
SO send the Step 2 escalation to the DVLA.
#Post#: 71487--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN for leased car at Wing Yip Cricklewood London
DIR By: dfwtolhr
Date: May 14, 2025, 10:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Correspondence from ukps
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 71528--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN for leased car at Wing Yip Cricklewood London
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 14, 2025, 1:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
“Reasonable Clause criteria”
Related to Santa Claus perhaps.
And “criterion” is the singular.
Given their inability to write proper English, I’m not sure I
think much of their competence.
Sorry, doesn’t really help, I’m just moaning!
#Post#: 76381--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN for leased car at Wing Yip Cricklewood London
DIR By: dfwtolhr
Date: June 13, 2025, 8:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Response from dvla complaint
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 76382--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN for leased car at Wing Yip Cricklewood London
DIR By: dfwtolhr
Date: June 13, 2025, 8:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
First half
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 76395--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN for leased car at Wing Yip Cricklewood London
DIR By: b789
Date: June 13, 2025, 10:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, you escalate to the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA) by
emailing with the following to ICA@dvla.gov.uk and CC yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: ICA complaint – misuse of keeper data by UKPS – DVLA
handling failure [0404017-Y3Z3B]
>
> Dear Independent Complaints Assessor,
>
> I am escalating my complaint because the DVLA’s Step 2 reply
(dated 9th June 2025) did not address the core issue: UK Parking
Solutions Ltd (UKPS) misused my keeper data after obtaining it
from the DVLA under the KADOE scheme.
>
> The following four points highlight the DVLA's failures:
>
> 1. DVLA position:
>
> [indent]“Reasonable cause” is judged only at the point of
request.[/indent]
>
> Why the response is inadequate:
>
> [indent]The KADOE contract is explicit that keeper data may be
used solely “for the purpose of enforcement in accordance with
the prevailing Code of Practice”. Once UKPS breached PPSCoP
8.1.1(d), their use of the data ceased to be lawful—even if the
original request was valid.[/indent]
>
> 2. DVLA position:
>
> [indent]PoFA compliance is “not required”.[/indent]
>
> Why the response is inadequate:
>
> [indent]Nobody argued it was. The complaint is that UKPS
invoked PoFA in wording but failed to meet para 9(2)(f).
Misrepresentation is data misuse. This point has been avoided
altogether.[/indent]
>
> 3. DVLA position:
>
> [indent]“We do not arbitrate civil disputes.”[/indent]
>
> Why the response is inadequate:
>
> [indent]I was not asking the DVLA to settle a parking
dispute—only to enforce its own contract and data-protection
duties when misuse is shown to have occurred, as it has in this
instance. [/indent]
>
> 4. DVLA position:
>
> [indent]Cites the ICO Opinion (Jun 2022) to justify
disclosure.[/indent]
>
> Why the response is inadequate:
>
> [indent]The 'Opinion' expressly states that operators must
comply with the Code. It does not excuse post-disclosure misuse
which was the cause for the complaint in the first
place.[/indent]
>
> Because the DVLA failed to engage with these four points, it
failed to apply its own policies or consider enforcement action
against UKPS. I therefore ask the ICA to review the DVLA’s
handling of my complaint and recommend that the case is
re-opened and referred to DVLA Enforcement & Compliance.
>
> I attach:
>
> [indent]• my original Step 1 and Step 2 submissions;
> • the DVLA Step 2 response;
> • a copy of the UKPS Notice to Keeper showing the PoFA 9(2)(f)
omission.[/indent]
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your name]
> [Date]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 77773--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN for leased car at Wing Yip Cricklewood London
DIR By: dfwtolhr
Date: June 23, 2025, 12:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Trace debt recovery letter
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 77830--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKPS PCN for leased car at Wing Yip Cricklewood London
DIR By: b789
Date: June 24, 2025, 2:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can safely ignore any debt recovery letters and we don't
need to know about them. Debt collectors are powerless to do
anything except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the
gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page