DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 100477--------------------------------------------------
PCN- ACE SECURITY SERVICES- NOT PARKING IN MARKED BAY
DIR By: DAWILD0
Date: December 1, 2025, 5:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Hoping for some advice on the below.
I am the registered keeper of a vehicle to which a PCN has been
issued for not parking wholly in a bay. I have attached photos
of the vehicle parked, the charge and signage, as you will be
able to see the bay was not clearly marked.
How should I respond to this?
Thanks in advance
HTML https://ibb.co/album/PFtz8P
#Post#: 100726--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN- ACE SECURITY SERVICES- NOT PARKING IN MARKED BAY
DIR By: b789
Date: December 2, 2025, 10:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Notice to Driver (NtD) is not fully compliant with all the
requirements of PoFA 2012 to be able to allow them to transfer
liability of the Keeper if the driver is not identified. Under
no circumstances do you identify the driver. They have no idea
of the drivers identity unless, you, the Keeper, blabs it to
them, inadvertently or otherwise.
The NtD fails to comply with Schedule 4 paragraph 7(2)(e) of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It does not identify any
creditor. The document is merely branded “Ace Security Services”
with a PO Box and website. “Ace Security Services” is only a
trading name of Pace Recovery & Storage Ltd, but that company is
never named on the notice, nor is it made clear whether the
creditor is the landowner, the landowner’s managing agent, or
any parking contractor.
The notice therefore fails to identify the legal person entitled
to recover the charge. In the absence of strict compliance with
paragraph 7, the Claimant cannot rely on Schedule 4 to transfer
liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
this is how you handle this. On Wednesday 24th December (yes,
Xmas eve) you appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) ONLY as the
Keeper of the vehicle. You email the following to
appeals@acesecurity.co.uk and CC yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Charge Notice 991871 – Keeper appeal
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> I am the registered keeper of vehicle BD21UOF and I am
appealing your Charge Notice 991871 dated 28/11/2025. I dispute
your parking charge in full. I deny any liability or contractual
agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory
conduct to your client landowner.
>
> Your Notice to Driver does not comply with the mandatory
requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (PoFA). In particular, paragraph 7(2)(e) requires the
notice to identify the creditor. Your PCN merely uses the
trading style “Ace Security Services” and does not identify any
legal person as creditor, nor state whether the creditor is the
landowner, a managing agent or any contracting company such as
Pace Recovery & Storage Ltd. A trading name is not a legal
entity. As PoFA requires strict compliance, partial or
substantial compliance is not sufficient. You therefore cannot
transfer any liability from the driver to the keeper.
>
> There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver
and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Your own Notice to
Driver is addressed only to the driver and can only ever hold
the driver liable. The registered keeper cannot be presumed or
inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under any alleged
law of agency.
>
> You now have my full keeper details as a result of this
appeal. You therefore have no reasonable cause to make any
request to the DVLA for my data. Any further request for
Registered Keeper details from the DVLA would be unnecessary and
excessive in breach of the data minimisation and necessity
principles under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018,
and would expose you to a claim for compensation for misuse of
my personal data.
>
> In view of the above, you are urged to cancel this Charge
Notice. If you refuse, please send me a rejection letter
together with the details of how to refer the matter to the IAS
so that I may keep a complete paper trail of your conduct.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> Registered Keeper
> Address [as shown on the V5C]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 101528--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN- ACE SECURITY SERVICES- NOT PARKING IN MARKED BAY
DIR By: DAWILD0
Date: December 8, 2025, 10:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
Thank you very much for the response to my previous post.
I have received the below from Ace Parking who are unfortunately
not accepting the appeal:
Thank you for your email regarding the above parking Charge
Notice. We acknowledge that there is no legal obligation for the
registered keeper of the vehicle to identify the driver of the
vehicle at the time the parking Charge Notice was issued. We
would, however, explain that as per the Supreme Court Case of
Beavis Vs Parking Eye as soon as the vehicle parks on private
land the driver enters into a contract for parking, as shown on
the Warning Signs (the contract). The creditor is Ace Security
Services, which is a trading name of Pace Recovery & Storage
Limited, which despite your assertion is a legal entity. The
company details are all clearly written on the back of the
Charge Notice.
There is no definition in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
that a creditor must be a ltd company or the landowner. The Act
defines the creditor as follows; the ‘creditor’ means a person
who is for the time being entitled to recover unpaid parking
charges from the driver of the vehicle.
By parking on the land, the driver accepts the terms of the
contract and if they leave the vehicle parked in breach of the
terms of the contract, they agree to pay £100 within 28 days of
the date of issue of any subsequent Charge Notice (CN). This
means that if a parking CN is issued, it is notification to the
driver of the vehicle that they are in breach of the terms and
conditions of parking, and a CN is payable. At this point, the
driver of the vehicle is liable for the CN and they alone, are
the only person that can lodge an appeal against the CN within
28 days of the date of issue. It is clearly stated on the
reverse of the CN, that unless there are extenuating
circumstances CNs can only be appealed by the driver who parked
the vehicle prior to the CN being issued. We are unable to
accept an appeal from a third party.
Should a CN remain unpaid after the 28 days of the date of
issue, and no appeal has been made by the driver, we are
entitled to pursue the matter as stipulated in Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In the first instance we are
required to make an enquiry with the Driver and Vehicle
Licensing Agency (DVLA) to obtain the details of the Registered
Keeper of the vehicle, to enable a Notice to Keeper to be sent.
In view of this, we are unable to accept your statement that you
are the registered keeper of the vehicle, as we are required to
follow due process.
Once a Notice to keeper has been issued, the right to appeal has
been lost.
Upon receipt of the Notice to Keeper, the person or company in
receipt of the Notice can either, pay the amount due, make a
statement to Transfer Liability or if there are extenuating
circumstances make an appeal outside the initial 28 period
against the issue of the Charge Notice.
If you were not the driver of the vehicle and you are the
Registered Keeper of the vehicle, you are entitled to wait to
receive the Notice to Keeper and then take the appropriate
action applicable to your situation. It should be noted;
however, that if you decide to take this course of action, any
reduced fee will not be available or offered.
We are fully compliant with the Data Protection Act 1988 and the
UK General Data Protection Regulations and are registered with
the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). Our Data Protection
registration number (Z1969902) is clearly shown on the reverse
of the Charge Notice, together with our Business Registration
number (3280414). There is also confirmation that we are a
member of The IPC (International Parking Community).
We would also refer you to our Privacy Statement, which can be
found on our website at www.acepay.co.uk, which also explains
the legal basis on which we process information.
In conclusion, we will accept an appeal from you if you confirm
you were the driver of the vehicle at the time the parking
Charge Notice was issued and providing that it is received with
28 days of the date of issue. If you were not the driver of the
vehicle, prior to the CN being issued, please ask the driver to
contact us direct if they wish to lodge an appeal against the
issue of the CN.
We hope that our email has explained our position with regards
the CN, as we are unable to assist you any further. You are of
course at liability to make a complaint to our client (the
landowner) as stated in your email
Any further advice would be greatly appreciated
#Post#: 101538--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN- ACE SECURITY SERVICES- NOT PARKING IN MARKED BAY
DIR By: b789
Date: December 8, 2025, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeez!!!!!! Which bit of my advice here did you not comprehend?
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> On Wednesday 24th December (yes, Xmas eve) you appeal the
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) ONLY as the Keeper of the vehicle.
>
--- End Quote ---
How to FUBAR a perfectly good appeal. I don't know why I bother
sometimes.
#Post#: 101548--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN- ACE SECURITY SERVICES- NOT PARKING IN MARKED BAY
DIR By: b789
Date: December 8, 2025, 11:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, rant over – timing was important here because I wanted Ace
to be locked into the statutory Notice to Keeper process and to
stop them playing games with who they will/won’t deal with.
The good news is that this is still salvageable. You have
already contacted them as Keeper and they’ve replied, admitting
(a) there is no legal obligation to name the driver and (b)
they’ve seen your email.
Next step:
[indent]• you send them one final email, expressly as the
registered keeper;
• you do not say who was driving;
• you point out that the Notice to Driver is not PoFA-compliant
because it fails to identify any creditor (Schedule 4 para
7(2)(e)); and
• you make it clear they now have your keeper details and have
no reasonable cause to go to DVLA for the same data.[/indent]
After that, you ignore any back-and-forth. If a Notice to Keeper
turns up, we check it for PoFA compliance. If they go to DVLA
anyway, that becomes a DVLA/ICO issue because they’ve requested
data they already hold.
On Wednesday 24th December (yes, Xmas eve), you send the
following response email to Ace (to “force” them to deal with
the keeper)
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Charge Notice [PCN NUMBER] – Registered keeper appeal
and data notice
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> I refer to your recent email regarding Charge Notice [PCN
NUMBER].
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, I am the registered keeper of
vehicle [VRM]. You have acknowledged that there is no legal
obligation on the registered keeper to identify the driver. I
have not identified the driver and I will not be doing so. There
will be no admission as to the identity of the driver and no
inference or assumptions can be drawn.
>
> Your Notice to Driver does not comply with the mandatory
requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012. Paragraph 7(2)(e) requires the notice to “identify the
creditor”. Your document is merely branded “Ace Security
Services” with a PO Box and website. It does not identify any
legal person as creditor, nor make it clear whether the creditor
is the landowner, a managing agent, or any contracting company
such as Pace Recovery & Storage Ltd. A trading style is not a
legal entity. PoFA requires strict compliance; partial or
substantial compliance is not sufficient. In the absence of
strict compliance with paragraph 7, you cannot rely on Schedule
4 to transfer any liability from the driver to the registered
keeper.
>
> Your assertion that only the driver can appeal is a
self-imposed policy with no basis in statute. There is nothing
in PoFA that restricts appeal rights to a driver. Your internal
policy does not override statute nor entitle you to ignore an
appeal clearly made by the registered keeper.
>
> You now have my full keeper details as a result of this
correspondence. You therefore have no reasonable cause to apply
to the DVLA for the same data. Any further request for
Registered Keeper details from the DVLA would be unnecessary and
excessive, in breach of the data minimisation and necessity
principles under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.
If you nevertheless obtain or misuse DVLA data in these
circumstances, I will treat that as grounds for formal
complaints to the DVLA and the Information Commissioner’s Office
and, if appropriate, a claim for compensation.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt:
>
> [indent]• this email is an appeal from the registered keeper;
> •I deny any liability or contractual agreement; and
> •you are invited to cancel the Charge Notice.[/indent]
>
> If you refuse to cancel, I require a rejection setting out
your position so that a full paper trail of your conduct is
preserved. If you maintain that you will disregard this appeal
solely because it is from the registered keeper, please confirm
that explicitly.
>
> This is my final substantive response. I will not enter into
further debate, and there will be no identification of the
driver.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> Registered Keeper
> [Address as per V5C]
--- End Quote ---
After that you wait to see if (a) a NtK appears, or (b) they hit
DVLA anyway (in which case you’ve got a clean paper trail for
DVLA/ICO complaint).
#Post#: 104357--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN- ACE SECURITY SERVICES- NOT PARKING IN MARKED BAY
DIR By: DAWILD0
Date: January 2, 2026, 3:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your previous message and apologies for jumping
the gun. I have since followed your instructions and responded
on Christmas eve. Since then I have recieved a letter which I've
uploaded a picture of to this this link
HTML https://ibb.co/qMq6Fq1k
#Post#: 104368--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN- ACE SECURITY SERVICES- NOT PARKING IN MARKED BAY
DIR By: b789
Date: January 2, 2026, 7:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The NtK has arrived and it is still not PoFA compliant, so they
cannot transfer liability to you as keeper.
This was a windscreen ticket on 28/11/2025. The NtK is dated
30/12/2025. The timing is within the PoFA window for a Notice to
Keeper following a Notice to Driver, so you cannot win on
service timing.
However, the NtK fails a mandatory PoFA requirement. Schedule 4
paragraph 8(2)(h) requires the Notice to Keeper to identify the
creditor. This NtK does not do that. It uses the trading name
“Ace Security Services” and then says “We, the Creditor…”, but
it does not clearly identify any legal person who is for the
time being entitled to recover the unpaid parking charge. A
trading name is not a legal person for PoFA purposes. Because
PoFA requires strict compliance, the failure to identify the
creditor is fatal to keeper liability.
They also state that they requested keeper details from the DVLA
because they “do not know both the name of the driver and a
current address for service for the driver”. That is irrelevant
to keeper liability. The issue is that they have not complied
with PoFA, so they have no right to recover anything from you as
keeper in any event.
At this stage you should not identify the driver, should not
enter into further debate with Ace, and should simply file
everything. If they attempt a court claim against you as keeper,
the defence is that PoFA keeper liability does not arise because
the NtK does not identify the creditor as required by paragraph
8(2)(h), and the claimant is put to strict proof of their legal
standing and entitlement to recover the charge.
Separately, a DVLA and ICO complaint is now arguable because you
had already written to Ace as the registered keeper and Ace had
acknowledged that correspondence, yet they still say they
obtained keeper data from the DVLA. Obtaining personal data from
the DVLA when they already held your name and address is
unnecessary and excessive processing, contrary to the data
minimisation principle in Article 5(1)(c) UK GDPR, and it is not
necessary for any legitimate interests lawful basis under
Article 6(1)(f). This is exactly why you were told in advance
not to go to the DVLA.
So the advice now is: do nothing further with Ace, do not name
the driver, keep the paperwork, and if you want to apply
pressure, proceed with a formal DVLA complaint (with your keeper
email date and Ace’s acknowledgement attached) and escalate to
the ICO if needed.
You can use this as the core of your DVLA complaint:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper of vehicle [VRM]. I am making a
formal complaint regarding Ace Security Services/Pace Recovery &
Storage Ltd obtaining my personal data from the DVLA without
reasonable cause.
>
> On [date] I contacted the operator directly as the registered
keeper in relation to Charge Notice [PCN number]. In that
correspondence I provided my full name and a current address for
service (the address shown on the V5C). The operator replied on
[date], acknowledging receipt of my email and engaging with my
correspondence. The operator therefore already held my keeper
identity and serviceable address.
>
> Despite already holding my personal data, the operator
subsequently requested and obtained my registered keeper details
from the DVLA. Their Notice to Keeper dated 30/12/2025 expressly
states that they obtained my details from the DVLA. This DVLA
request was unnecessary and excessive because my name and
address were already known to the operator and had been
acknowledged in writing.
>
> In these circumstances, the operator did not have “reasonable
cause” to obtain my data from the DVLA. The stated purpose of
requesting keeper data is to identify and contact the registered
keeper. That purpose had already been fulfilled before the DVLA
request was made.
>
> Obtaining my data from the DVLA when it was not necessary
constitutes a breach of the data minimisation principle under
Article 5(1)(c) UK GDPR, which requires that personal data be
adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary for the
purposes for which it is processed. It is also not “necessary”
for any lawful basis under Article 6(1)(f) UK GDPR (legitimate
interests), because the operator could already correspond with
me as keeper without any DVLA disclosure.
>
> I therefore ask the DVLA to investigate and confirm:
>
> [indent]1. The date on which my personal data was disclosed to
the operator and under what justification.
> 2. What reason the operator provided to the DVLA to
demonstrate “reasonable cause”, given that they already held my
name and address.
> 3. Whether the operator’s request complied with the KADOE
contract requirement that keeper data must only be requested
where it is necessary.
> 4. Whether DVLA considers it lawful for an operator to obtain
DVLA keeper data where the keeper has already provided the same
information directly and that information has been
acknowledged.[/indent]
>
> I request confirmation of the outcome of the DVLA’s
investigation and any action taken.
>
> Evidence enclosed:
> [indent]– Copy of my email to the operator dated [date/time]
providing my keeper details
> – Copy of the operator’s reply dated [date/time] acknowledging
my correspondence
> – Copy of the Notice to Keeper dated 30/12/2025 confirming
that my data was obtained from the DVLA[/indent]
--- End Quote ---
You can use the following as the core of your ICO complaint:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper of vehicle [VRM]. I am making a
complaint about unnecessary and excessive processing of my
personal data by Ace Security Services/Pace Recovery & Storage
Ltd.
>
> On [date] I contacted the organisation directly as the
registered keeper regarding Charge Notice [PCN number]. In that
correspondence I provided my full name and a current address for
service (the address shown on the V5C). The organisation replied
on [date], acknowledging receipt and engaging with my
correspondence. They therefore already held my personal data
(name and address) sufficient to correspond with me.
>
> Despite already holding my details, the organisation then
requested and obtained my registered keeper data from the DVLA.
Their Notice to Keeper dated 30/12/2025 states that they
obtained my details from the DVLA. This additional acquisition
of my personal data from a third party was unnecessary and
duplicative.
>
> Obtaining my personal data from the DVLA when it was not
necessary breaches the data minimisation principle in Article
5(1)(c) UK GDPR (personal data must be adequate, relevant and
limited to what is necessary). It is also not “necessary” for
the purposes of any lawful basis under Article 6(1)(f) UK GDPR
(legitimate interests), because they already held my name and
address and could correspond with me without making any DVLA
request.
>
> I have raised the matter with the DVLA as the data source and
asked them to investigate whether there was reasonable cause for
the disclosure. However, this complaint concerns the
organisation’s processing decision to obtain additional personal
data from the DVLA despite already holding it.
>
> I ask the ICO to consider whether the organisation has
complied with its UK GDPR obligations, in particular:
>
> [indent]1. Article 5(1)(c) data minimisation, given the DVLA
request was not necessary once my keeper details were already
held.
> 2. Article 5(1)(a) lawfulness and fairness, because obtaining
additional data from the DVLA without necessity is not fair or
lawful processing.
> 3. Article 6(1)(f) necessity under legitimate interests, as
the additional DVLA data was not necessary to pursue the stated
purpose.[/indent]
>
> Evidence enclosed:
>
> [indent]A. My email to the organisation dated [date/time]
providing my name and address.
> B. The organisation’s reply dated [date/time] acknowledging
receipt.
> C. The Notice to Keeper dated 30/12/2025 stating that my data
was obtained from the DVLA.[/indent]
>
> Please confirm whether the ICO considers this unnecessary
third-party data acquisition to be compliant with UK GDPR, and
what steps the organisation should be required to take to
prevent repetition.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 110060--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN- ACE SECURITY SERVICES- NOT PARKING IN MARKED BAY
DIR By: DAWILD0
Date: February 17, 2026, 6:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Thank you for all your help up to now
I have received this letter from a legal company and would like
to know how best to respond
HTML https://ibb.co/WZjWWgS
Many thanks
#Post#: 110061--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN- ACE SECURITY SERVICES- NOT PARKING IN MARKED BAY
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 17, 2026, 7:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Don't - await a Letter of Claim. Come back when you receive one.
#Post#: 117050--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN- ACE SECURITY SERVICES- NOT PARKING IN MARKED BAY
DIR By: DAWILD0
Date: April 26, 2026, 10:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I have now received a letter of claim, please see below link.
What would be my next steps?
Many thanks
HTML https://ibb.co/Kc15jG1Z
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page