I am submitting a formal complaint against Civil Parking Office Ltd, an IPC Accredited Operator with DVLA KADOE access, for breaching the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) after obtaining my personal data.BPA Accredited
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.
I am submitting a formal complaint against Civil Parking Office Ltd, an IPC Accredited Operator with DVLA KADOE access, for breaching the 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.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP
Operator name: Civil Parking Office Ltd
Date of PCN issue: [Insert date of PCN]
Vehicle registration: [Insert your VRM]
I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my personal data by Civil Parking Office Ltd, 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 used that data afterwards amounts to unlawful processing. This is because they acted in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which 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, Civil Parking Office Ltd breached the PPSCoP in the following ways:• They issued a Notice to Keeper that was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), meaning they had no legal basis to pursue the Keeper if the driver was not identified.
• Despite this, they pursued me as the Keeper without evidence of who was driving.
• When challenged, they later claimed—falsely and without any reliable evidence—that I had identified myself as the driver during my appeal.
• They submitted backend system notes to POPLA as “proof” that I had selected the “driver” option, despite providing no metadata or verifiable audit trail to support this claim.
• Their own initial appeal rejection made no mention of me identifying as the driver, confirming that they had treated me as the Keeper at that time.
• Their behaviour was found to be misleading and lacking in evidence by the POPLA assessor, who upheld my appeal.
The POPLA assessor stated:“I can also see that the appellant’s text within the appeal clearly states that they were appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle... I cannot be satisfied that the snippet of information was from when the appellant’s appeal was submitted as they have not provided any identifiable information from when the appeal was made to show that it was put forward by the appellant.”
These actions demonstrate a serious breach of the PPSCoP and a misuse of DVLA data. The operator’s attempt to misrepresent my status and pursue the charge in bad faith shows a clear disregard for the standards required under the Code. As a result, Civil Parking Office Ltd is no longer entitled to use the keeper data they obtained from the DVLA, because the purpose for which it was provided—lawful pursuit of a parking 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. 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:• Confirming that a breach has occurred
• Taking enforcement action against the operator
• Suspending or terminating their KADOE access if warranted
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]
The operator claims that I selected “driver” during my appeal. This is categorically false. The appeal was submitted solely as the Keeper under legal advisement, and this was witnessed. The text of my appeal clearly shows that I was challenging the charge in my capacity as the Keeper. A good faith reading of the appeal would make this obvious, as it explicitly states that I am not revealing who was driving. The operator’s attempt to claim otherwise is disingenuous and appears to be an attempt to manipulate the facts in their favour.
The operator’s so-called “evidence” is nothing more than an unverifiable backend system log entry. It contains no metadata or audit trail to prove its authenticity and has likely been forged or tampered with, given the operator’s history as an untrustworthy firm of ex-clampers.
If the operator genuinely believed I had identified myself as the driver, why did they not raise this in their initial rejection letter? Their rejection explicitly treated me as the Keeper, stating: “Please note, Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 was not referenced within the Notice to Keeper. Our client Civil Parking Office Ltd are entitled to write to the Keeper in regards to driver information.” There was no mention whatsoever that I had allegedly identified myself as the driver. This omission is critical because if they truly believed I had “outed” myself as the driver, they would have raised it immediately. The fact that this claim only appears now, at the POPLA stage, suggests desperation and bad faith on the part of the operator.
The operator’s backend log entry stating “Liable Party set to: Driver” is not proof of anything. It is a self-serving piece of evidence that could easily have been manipulated after the appeal was submitted. There is no independent verification, no metadata, and no audit trail to confirm the accuracy of this log. Even if such a selection had been made in error, this does not constitute clear evidence of driver identity. As confirmed in persuasive case law, including VCS v Edward (2023), no assumption or inference can be made about the Keeper being the driver without unequivocal evidence. The operator has failed to provide such evidence.
Furthermore, the operator’s evidence of ANPR images fails to demonstrate a parking contravention or the driver’s identity. These images merely show entry and exit times, not proof of parking, nor proof that the terms and conditions were accepted by the driver. Without evidence of a specific parking breach or driver identification, their case is baseless.
I am fully aware that POPLA’s decision is not binding on me as the appellant, and I am prepared to defend this matter in court if necessary. In a court of law, the operator would be required to produce robust evidence under strict scrutiny. Any attempts to manipulate or forge evidence would be treated very seriously by the court.
In summary:
1. The operator’s claim that I selected “driver” is categorically false and unproven.
2. A good faith reading of my appeal text makes it clear that I was challenging the charge as the Keeper and explicitly stated that I was not revealing who was driving.
3. Their so-called “evidence” is unreliable, unverifiable, and likely manipulated.
4. If they genuinely believed I had identified myself as the driver, this would have been raised in their rejection letter, but it was not.
5. Their ANPR evidence fails to prove a parking contravention or identify the driver.
6. As the Keeper, I deny any liability for this charge.
I request that POPLA upholds my appeal and cancels this Parking Charge Notice.
Yes, they are trying their luck. I would normally put together a POPLA appeal that covers a multitude of other points, as the appellant only has to succeed on a single one, whereas the operator has to succeed on all the points raised.
However, this is such a blatant abuse and evidence of unlawful behaviour that a single issue POPLA appeal would succeed anyway. Appeal only as the Keeper with the following:QuotePOPLA Appeal: [Insert POPLA Reference Number]
Appellant: [Your Name or "Registered Keeper"]
Operator: Civil Parking Office Ltd
PCN Reference Number: [Insert PCN Number]
Appeal Grounds
1. The Notice to Keeper Is Not PoFA Compliant—No Keeper Liability
The operator has openly admitted that their Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). As a result, the operator has no legal basis to transfer liability for the alleged parking charge to the registered keeper.
As confirmed in my appeal to the operator, I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, and no admission has been made regarding the identity of the driver. The operator has provided no evidence to establish the driver's identity, which is their burden to prove if they wish to pursue this claim.
Let me be clear: the POPLA assessor cannot assume or infer that the registered keeper was the driver. This would be a breach of the assessor’s role and contrary to well-established legal principles, including VCS v Edward (2023), which clarifies that no assumption or inference can be made unless the operator provides clear, unequivocal evidence identifying the driver.
The operator has failed to provide such evidence, and their case must fail on this point alone.
2. Misleading Assertions in the Rejection Letter
Despite acknowledging their NtK is not PoFA compliant, the operator’s rejection letter falsely asserts:"As you have breached the terms and conditions of parking, you are now required to pay the contractually agreed charges as stated on our signage."
This language is deliberately misleading, as it attempts to suggest that liability has automatically transferred to me, the registered keeper. Such tactics are both unlawful and unethical, as they exploit the ignorance of recipients who may not be familiar with their legal rights.
3. Failure to Identify the Driver
Since the NtK is not PoFA compliant, the operator’s claim relies entirely on identifying the driver. However, no evidence has been provided to establish who was driving the vehicle at the time. Without such evidence, the operator has no case.
It is not my responsibility to identify the driver, nor is there any legal obligation on me to do so. The operator’s failure to meet their evidentiary burden is fatal to their claim.
4. Lack of Evidence of a Parking Contravention
The operator’s reliance on Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images showing the vehicle entering and exiting the site does not demonstrate a parking contravention. There is no evidence provided of:• The vehicle being parked, as opposed to merely passing through.
• Any specific terms of parking being agreed to or breached.
Without clear evidence of a parking event and breach of terms, this claim lacks credibility.
Pre-Empting Incorrect Assumptions by the POPLA Assessor
I must emphasise that no assumption or inference can be made regarding the registered keeper being the driver. Such assumptions are contrary to legal precedent, including the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Annual Report 2018, which confirms that assessors must not make unfounded inferences.
If the assessor fails to recognise this point, the decision would be procedurally flawed and legally invalid.
Conclusion
This operator’s claim is legally baseless, as they have failed to:• Issue a PoFA-compliant NtK to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
• Provide any evidence identifying the driver.
• Prove a parking contravention occurred.
The operator’s behaviour in this matter is both incompetent and predatory. I request that POPLA cancel this Parking Charge Notice and strongly criticise the operator for their misleading conduct and complete disregard for established legal standards.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name or "Registered Keeper"]
Pre-Empting Incorrect Assumptions by the POPLA AssessorThis might be a matter of personal approach, but I'd personally avoid wording that might unnecessarily p*ss off the assessor, who you want to be on your side. I would perhaps word this heading along the lines of "No assumptions or inferences may be drawn". Perhaps I've been lucky with assessors, but most of the assessments I've seen recently have avoided drawing unreasonable inferences.
My approach would be to lead the assessor directly to the correct conclusion, not berate him on the assumption he'll make the wrong decision without your help (as tempting as that is ;D )
PPC: Horizon Parking Ltd
Location: Tesco Salford Quays
Main thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6560681/driver-doesnt-want-to-pay-horizon-fine-but-registered-keeper-does/p1
Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: Jason Cookson-Dean
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice for exceeding the maximum stay period.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The notice to keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the liability has been transferred one day too early. • The notice to keeper does not have specific wording as set out in PoFA. • The notice to keeper was issued on 3 October and presumed given to keeper on 7 October and the 28 days would start on 8 October. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal advising that the PCN is not PoFA compliant, and that the operator has never used PoFA in previous PCN’s. The appellant has provided a part screenshot of the wording on the PCN as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. For an operator to transfer liability of unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA must be adhered to. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet and comply with. In its code of practice section 21.16 it states: “If the keeper does not reply within 28 days, or refuses to give enough details about the driver, under Schedule 4 of POFA you are able to pursue the keeper for the unpaid parking charge.” Paragraph 9 (2) (f) (ii) of PoFA 2102 it states: “(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given”…“the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid.” The appellant has provided a copy of the wording on the PCN as evidence. The day the notice was given is the date the PCN was issued. The second working day is the date when the PCN is presumed to be delivered to the keeper. The operator has issued the PCN on Thursday 3 October 2024, PoFA would mean that the 28 day period would begin on Friday 4 October 2024. The operator has stated that it would start on the second working day which would be Monday 7 October 2024. The wording on this PCN allows the keeper more time to respond than PoFA requires. Having viewed the notice to keeper issued to the appellant I am satisfied that the operator has complied with Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of PoFA 2012, and that liability of the parking charge was successfully transferred to the keeper at the time of the event. POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The parking operator has provided photos of the signs at the car park which state that there is a maximum 20-minute stay. The signs also say that a PCN of £70 will be issued for not complying. It is the responsibility of the motorist when entering a car park that they make themselves aware of the signs and what the restrictions are. The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images of the appellants vehicle arriving at 09:57 and leaving one hour and 12 minutes later. As this exceeds the maximum 20-minute stay, the driver has not followed the terms of the site and the parking operator has issued the PCN. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver has exceeded the maximum 20-minute stay and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.
Pre-Empting Incorrect Assumptions by the POPLA AssessorThis might be a matter of personal approach, but I'd personally avoid wording that might unnecessarily p*ss off the assessor, who you want to be on your side. I would perhaps word this heading along the lines of "No assumptions or inferences may be drawn". Perhaps I've been lucky with assessors, but most of the assessments I've seen recently have avoided drawing unreasonable inferences.
POPLA Appeal: [Insert POPLA Reference Number]
Appellant: [Your Name or "Registered Keeper"]
Operator: Civil Parking Office Ltd
PCN Reference Number: [Insert PCN Number]
Appeal Grounds
1. The Notice to Keeper Is Not PoFA Compliant—No Keeper Liability
The operator has openly admitted that their Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). As a result, the operator has no legal basis to transfer liability for the alleged parking charge to the registered keeper.
As confirmed in my appeal to the operator, I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, and no admission has been made regarding the identity of the driver. The operator has provided no evidence to establish the driver's identity, which is their burden to prove if they wish to pursue this claim.
Let me be clear: the POPLA assessor cannot assume or infer that the registered keeper was the driver. This would be a breach of the assessor’s role and contrary to well-established legal principles, including VCS v Edward (2023), which clarifies that no assumption or inference can be made unless the operator provides clear, unequivocal evidence identifying the driver.
The operator has failed to provide such evidence, and their case must fail on this point alone.
2. Misleading Assertions in the Rejection Letter
Despite acknowledging their NtK is not PoFA compliant, the operator’s rejection letter falsely asserts:"As you have breached the terms and conditions of parking, you are now required to pay the contractually agreed charges as stated on our signage."
This language is deliberately misleading, as it attempts to suggest that liability has automatically transferred to me, the registered keeper. Such tactics are both unlawful and unethical, as they exploit the ignorance of recipients who may not be familiar with their legal rights.
3. Failure to Identify the Driver
Since the NtK is not PoFA compliant, the operator’s claim relies entirely on identifying the driver. However, no evidence has been provided to establish who was driving the vehicle at the time. Without such evidence, the operator has no case.
It is not my responsibility to identify the driver, nor is there any legal obligation on me to do so. The operator’s failure to meet their evidentiary burden is fatal to their claim.
4. Lack of Evidence of a Parking Contravention
The operator’s reliance on Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images showing the vehicle entering and exiting the site does not demonstrate a parking contravention. There is no evidence provided of:• The vehicle being parked, as opposed to merely passing through.
• Any specific terms of parking being agreed to or breached.
Without clear evidence of a parking event and breach of terms, this claim lacks credibility.
Pre-Empting Incorrect Assumptions by the POPLA Assessor
I must emphasise that no assumption or inference can be made regarding the registered keeper being the driver. Such assumptions are contrary to legal precedent, including the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Annual Report 2018, which confirms that assessors must not make unfounded inferences.
If the assessor fails to recognise this point, the decision would be procedurally flawed and legally invalid.
Conclusion
This operator’s claim is legally baseless, as they have failed to:• Issue a PoFA-compliant NtK to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
• Provide any evidence identifying the driver.
• Prove a parking contravention occurred.
The operator’s behaviour in this matter is both incompetent and predatory. I request that POPLA cancel this Parking Charge Notice and strongly criticise the operator for their misleading conduct and complete disregard for established legal standards.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name or "Registered Keeper"]
I will work on the assumption that what has been shown is the original NtK:
Easy one to defeat... as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:QuoteI am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. CPO has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. CPO have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Don’t modify the wording or try to overthink this. Just make sure when selecting any options/menus that the appellant is ONLY appealing as the Keeper or “other”.
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. CPO has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. CPO have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.