Reply by email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself with the following:
Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim Ref: [reference number]
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client places reliance upon, putting it in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
As a supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to comply with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You may wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require the exchange of sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.
Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none. That omission undermines the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue while you decline to furnish the very document you purport to enforce.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with para 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required. Accordingly, please provide:
1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) and any notice chain relied upon to assert PoFA 2012 liability.
2. A copy of the contract you allege exists between your client and the driver, being an actual photograph of the sign(s) in place on the material date (not a stock image), together with a site plan showing the sign locations.
3. The precise wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing standing/authority to enforce and to litigate.
5. A breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” add-on includes VAT.
I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction, and I require it to meet my own obligation under paragraph 6(b).
If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as non-compliance with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct and will raise a formal complaint to the SRA regarding your conduct. I reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court and to seek appropriate sanctions and costs (including, where appropriate, a stay and/or other case management orders).
Until your client complies and provides the requested material, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim or to consider my position. It would be premature and a waste of costs and court time to issue proceedings. Should you do so, I will seek immediate case management relief pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order compelling provision of the above.
Please note, I will not engage with any web portal; I will only respond by email or post.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
Given the content of that response, a Step 2 escalation is warranted in order to challenge their interpretation of "reasonable cause" and their failure to address the key issues raised regarding data minimisation, KADOE misuse, and non-compliance with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
I suggest a response as follows:
FORMAL COMPLAINT – STEP 2 ESCALATION
Misuse of DVLA Keeper Data by Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd (PCM)
To: DVLA Data Assurance Team – Step 2 Complaints
[Insert Date]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to escalate my formal complaint regarding the improper KADOE data request made by Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd (PCM), which was inadequately addressed in your Step 1 response dated [insert date].
Summary of Step 1 Response
Your reply, signed by Mrs L J Mallabum, claims that PCM had "reasonable cause" to request my data because I did not identify the driver in my appeal, and that Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) does not prevent access to DVLA data if the operator decides to pursue under the pre-PoFA common law position.
With respect, this reply fails to address the crux of my complaint: PCM already possessed the very same keeper data they subsequently requested from the DVLA, which means the KADOE access served no necessary or proportionate purpose. This is not a question of PoFA compliance, but of unlawful duplicate data acquisition contrary to both:
• the KADOE Contract, which only permits data requests when “necessary for the purpose of enforcing an unpaid parking charge,” and
• the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), Article 5(1)(c), which mandates the principle of data minimisation.
Misrepresentation of Appeal Rights
Your response accepts PCM’s explanation that only the driver could appeal following a Notice to Driver (NtD). This is incorrect and misrepresents the position under both the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and prior BPA/IPC guidance. A representation made by a registered keeper is a valid appeal, and an ATA member must consider it fairly.
It is concerning that the DVLA accepts as “reasonable cause” a request for personal data based on a process that was itself unfair, obstructive, and non-compliant. PCM’s refusal to consider a valid appeal submitted by the registered keeper does not give rise to a legitimate need to request the same keeper data already held.
No Enforcement Purpose Satisfied
Your reply focuses on the theoretical right of an operator to pursue a charge outside of PoFA if the NtK is not served within 14 days. However, this point is irrelevant because:
1. PCM already had my name and address, willingly provided by me in a valid appeal.
2. There was no enforcement need or lawful basis for a duplicate acquisition of identical data via KADOE.
3. The DVLA’s own contract prohibits data requests unless strict necessity for enforcement is established.
The issuing of a Notice to Keeper to a party who has already submitted all required information voluntarily is not an enforcement activity. It is an administrative duplication used solely to bypass the appeal stage and continue the PCN process, in direct conflict with the expectations of fair processing.
Relief Sought
I respectfully request the following:
1. A proper review of whether PCM’s KADOE request complied with the necessity threshold in the KADOE contract and data minimisation under UK GDPR;
2. Confirmation of whether DVLA agrees that operators may request keeper data even when they already hold that same data, and if so, the legal basis under the UK GDPR;
3. A full explanation as to why DVLA accepts a non-compliant refusal to engage with a keeper appeal as grounds to then access keeper data already provided;
4. Confirmation of whether DVLA will be referring this incident to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for an independent assessment.
Should this Step 2 response not resolve the matter, I will escalate my concerns to my MP and the ICO, as I believe this situation constitutes a clear misuse of personal data and a breach of statutory obligations.
I would appreciate an acknowledgment of this Step 2 complaint and a timeframe for your full response.
Yours faithfully,
[Full Name]
[Postal Address]
[Email Address]
[Phone Number]
OK... here is what you do now. You should send the following complaint to the DVLA. You will edit the complaint as necessary with your details and sign it by typing your full name for the signature. You will then have to combine the letter with copies of the original NtD, the PCN response where they refuse to consider your appeal as the Keeper and anything else that is relevant into a single PDF file which cannot be larger than 19Mb.
You can use a free online tool such as this: https://www.pdf2go.com to combine the separate PDF pages into a single PDF document and also compress it is necessary to under 19.5Mb. When your document is ready, you go to the DVLA complaints webform, which is slightly convoluted: https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/complaints
You should start and then select the third option: "Making a complaint or compliment about the Vehicles service you have received".
You will then have to provide your personal details, your address and then your vehicle details. You will then be presented with webform in which you can put the following as covering information:
Dear DVLA KADOE Compliance Team,
Please find attached a formal complaint regarding Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd and their unlawful use of DVLA data via the KADOE system.
The attached PDF contains a detailed complaint and all supporting evidence. It demonstrates that PCM was already in possession of my full name, address, vehicle details, and PCN reference following a direct appeal submitted after a Notice to Driver was issued. Despite this, PCM applied to the DVLA for my data and issued a Notice to Keeper to the same address, thereby accessing personal data unnecessarily and in breach of both the KADOE contract and the UK GDPR (Article 5(1)(c)).
In addition, PCM is already in breach of the KADOE contract by virtue of their failure to comply with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, which is a mandatory requirement under the terms of their data access. Their refusal to process a valid Keeper appeal and misrepresentation of procedural rules are clear breaches of the PPSCoP.
I respectfully request that the DVLA investigates this matter and confirms what action will be taken in response.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
The next step will let you upload your actual PDF complaint. Here is the draft wording for your actual complaint to the DVLA which should be saved as a PDF document once you have completed it and then, as already described above, combined with your other evidential correspondence into a single PDF file that is under 19.5Mb is size.
FORMAL COMPLAINT – UNLAWFUL KADOE DATA REQUEST BY PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LTD
To: DVLA KADOE Compliance Team
[Date]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am raising a formal complaint regarding Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd (PCM), who accessed my DVLA keeper data via the KADOE system despite already being in possession of all relevant personal details voluntarily provided by me during a valid appeal. This access was unnecessary, excessive, and in breach of both the KADOE contract and the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR).
Background Summary
Parking Operator: Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd
PCN Reference: [Insert PCN number]
VRM: [Insert vehicle registration]
Date of Alleged Contravention: [Insert date]
PCM issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by way of a Notice to Driver (NtD) affixed to my vehicle. This NtD failed to comply with the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), as it did not specify any “period of parking” — only a timestamp was shown.
This approach is legally inadequate. In the persuasive appellate decision Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], the court held that a single moment in time cannot amount to a “period of parking.” The judge confirmed that, although the whole period of parking does not need to be recorded, there must be at least some recorded duration, such as the minimum consideration period, particularly where there is no evidence that the driver accepted the parking terms and conditions and decided to leave.
Following receipt of the NtD, I submitted a formal appeal to PCM. In doing so, I:
• Identified myself as the registered keeper of the vehicle;
• Provided my full name and serviceable address;
• Confirmed the PCN reference number and vehicle registration.
This is the same data PCM would otherwise obtain via a KADOE request to the DVLA.
Misuse of DVLA Data
PCM responded by refusing to process my appeal, claiming that only the driver may appeal at that stage — a procedural misrepresentation with no basis in PoFA or the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). They then decided to reject the appeal and made a KADOE application to the DVLA for my keeper details and issued a Notice to Keeper (NtK) to the same name and address I had already provided voluntarily.
This request was wholly unnecessary, disproportionate, and made despite having already acquired the same information directly from me, which means it served no enforcement purpose. Under the KADOE contract, operators may only request DVLA data where it is necessary for the purpose of enforcing unpaid parking charges. That threshold was clearly not met.
The request also breached the principle of data minimisation under Article 5(1)(c) UK GDPR, which requires that only the minimum amount of personal data necessary be collected and processed.
Breach of the KADOE Contract
Importantly, PCM is already in breach of the KADOE contract by virtue of failing to comply with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which is a mandatory condition of KADOE access.
Specifically:
• They misrepresented the appeal process by falsely claiming that only the driver could appeal at the NtD stage;
• They refused to engage with a valid representation made by the registered keeper;
• They made a duplicate request for data they already held, in contravention of both the PPSCoP and the KADOE agreement.
These actions undermine the fair and lawful use of DVLA keeper data and clearly fall outside the scope of permissible access under the KADOE terms.
Relief Requested
I request that the DVLA:
1. Investigates this misuse of personal data and breach of the KADOE contract by Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd;
2. Confirms that this operator has accessed data outside the permitted purpose;
3. Advises what remedial or enforcement action will be taken in response, including any warning, suspension, or review of KADOE access.
Attached to and in support of this complaint, I include:
• My original appeal (with personal details and PCN reference);
• PCM’s response refusing to process it;
• A copy of the NtD and subsequent NtK;
• Related correspondence.
Please confirm receipt of this complaint and keep me informed of the outcome of your investigation.
Yours faithfully,
[Full Name]
[Postal Address]
[Email Address]
[Phone Number]
I also advise you to make contact with your MP and have get them involved in this matter. You can ask your MP to intervene on your behalf with the IPC. Here is a draft message you could send to your MP. (Find your MP (https://members.parliament.uk/FindYourMP))
Dear [MP’s Name],
I am writing to request your assistance with a serious concern regarding the conduct of a private parking operator, Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd (PCM), and its Accredited Trade Association, the International Parking Community (IPC).
PCM unlawfully accessed my DVLA Keeper data via the KADOE system, despite having already received my full name, postal address, and vehicle details in a direct appeal submitted after a Notice to Driver (NtD) was issued. They later issued a Notice to Keeper (NtK) to the same name and address I had already supplied — an entirely unnecessary duplication, in breach of both the DVLA’s KADOE contract and the data minimisation principle under Article 5(1)(c) of the UK GDPR.
To compound this, PCM refused to consider my valid appeal on the false premise that only the driver could appeal at that stage, which misrepresents the law and contradicts the requirements of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). Their conduct demonstrates a broader pattern of disregard for regulatory compliance.
As a result, I have submitted a formal complaint to the DVLA (copy enclosed), but I would be grateful for your support in the following ways:
1. Raise a Parliamentary Question
Would you be willing to submit a Written Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Transport, asking:
"What guidance does the DVLA issue to private parking operators regarding the prohibition of unnecessary or duplicate KADOE data requests where a data subject has already provided their name and address voluntarily?"
A related question could ask:
"How many operators have had access to DVLA data suspended or investigated in the past 12 months due to breaches of the KADOE contract or non-compliance with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice?"
2. Submit a Complaint to the IPC on My Behalf
Given the IPC’s well-known reluctance to engage meaningfully with complaints from the general public, I would be grateful if you could escalate my complaint to the IPC directly. My concern relates to:
• PCM’s refusal to process a valid appeal;
• Its non-compliance with the PPSCoP;
• It's improper use of DVLA data despite already possessing the information.
As the IPC is a self-regulatory body, I believe they are more likely to respond appropriately to a formal enquiry or complaint made by a Member of Parliament.
3. Support for the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019
Finally, I respectfully ask you to lend your support to the full commencement and implementation of the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. This legislation received Royal Assent nearly six years ago but remains dormant, while unregulated and inconsistent practices continue to harm motorists — particularly vulnerable groups.
The existing system of self-regulation has clearly failed to prevent abuses, and I believe Parliamentary support for activating the statutory Code is long overdue.
I enclose my full DVLA complaint and supporting evidence. Thank you very much for your time and consideration of this matter. I would be extremely grateful for your assistance and hope this issue may also be raised further with the Department for Transport if appropriate.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email Address]
[Your Phone Number]