Did you ever get a response to the POPLA complaint?No. The complaint to the DVLA is also outstanding. I did get an email from the DVLA saying they were sorry they hadn't met their deadline and they'd either respond within two further weeks or else notify of me of a revised target date, but that was the last I heard from them.
Just continue to ignore PE. Not with the effort to be honest.
Subject: Formal Complaint – POPLA Assessor Lyndsey Howgate’s Incompetent Decision
I am lodging this complaint not out of hope that POPLA will correct its mistake—because you’ve proven time and again that you won’t—but to document the sheer absurdity of the decision issued by Lyndsey Howgate in appeal [insert verification code].
The assessor’s grasp of PoFA 2012 is laughable. They acknowledge it doesn’t apply in Scotland, then immediately contradict themselves by claiming it does apply to a Scottish keeper because the PCN was issued in England. This is not just wrong—it’s legally illiterate. PoFA applies to keepers in England and Wales. It does not magically override jurisdictional boundaries based on where a car was parked.
The decision reads like a GCSE student’s first attempt at statutory interpretation—riddled with errors, devoid of logic, and utterly unfit for purpose. If this is the standard of legal reasoning POPLA endorses, it’s no wonder the service is widely regarded as a rubber-stamping exercise for private parking firms.
I demand a formal apology from the assessor for this absurd decision and expect immediate retraining. If POPLA has any integrity left, it will acknowledge that allowing assessors to issue legally void decisions undermines the entire appeals process.
With the upcoming implementation of the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, POPLA’s days of unchecked nonsense are numbered. When a properly regulated appeals service takes over, decisions like this will be relics of a failed system—and assessors like this one will be free to pursue careers more aligned with their talents.
I now wait for the operator to attempt the ridiculous feat of pursuing me through the Scottish courts, where PoFA 2012 holds no sway and their case will collapse faster than POPLA’s credibility. When that day comes, I’ll have the last laugh, watching their legal fantasy dissolve into the reality of jurisdictional limits they never bothered to understand. Until then, I’ll keep this decision as a monument to the intellectual malnourishment of POPLA’s appeals process.
"I am aware The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper due to the drivers details not being supplied. The appellant states the parking operators action is incorrect due to PoFA 2012 not being applicable in Scotland. Whilst I acknowledge the appellants statement and agree, it is important to point out that it is the area in which the PCN is issued, and not where a registered keeper lives. Therefore, as the PCN was issued for a car park in England, I am satisfied that PoFA 2012 would be applicable and the parking operator was correct when it transferred liability of the PCN to the Registered Keeper and this is compliant with PoFA."
POPLA assessment and decision
01/09/2025
Verification Code
[***]
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Lyndsey Howgate
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to remaining on the car park for longer than the permitted free stay.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below •The appellant advises they are the registered keeper of the vehicle, live in Scotland and there has been no identification of the driver. PoFA makes no provision for transfer of liability to a registered keeper in Scotland, and therefore liability may not be transferred to them. •The appellant advises they submitted an appeal to the parking operator on the 19 February 2025, and the parking operator broke BPA Code of Practice section 8.4.1 because it did not conclude a response to their appeal within 28 days, nor, having harassed them to provide information that I told them unequivocally in their appeal that they would not obtain. The appellant advises they only received a response from the parking operator 121 days after their initial appeal had been raised. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their grounds of appeal. •The appellant states that the parking operator has always identified itself to them as "Parking Eye Ltd", not under the name "Parking Eye Ltd including Car Parking Partnership (CPP) - EW". Its use of two different names is something they urge to be investigated. •The appellant states the evidence provided by the parking operator is not relevant. •The appellant states that they consider the PCN to be void, and look forward to receiving confirmation of POPLA's agreement to this effect. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle and therefore I will refer to them as the appellant throughout my report. When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The appellant advises they are the registered keeper of the vehicle, live in Scotland and there has been no identification of the driver. PoFA makes no provision for transfer of liability to a registered keeper in Scotland, and therefore liability may not be transferred to them. I am aware The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper due to the drivers details not being supplied. The appellant states the parking operators action is incorrect due to PoFA 2012 not being applicable in Scotland. Whilst I acknowledge the appellants statement and agree, it is important to point out that it is the area in which the PCN is issued, and not where a registered keeper lives. Therefore, as the PCN was issued for a car park in England, I am satisfied that PoFA 2012 would be applicable and the parking operator was correct when it transferred liability of the PCN to the Registered Keeper and this is compliant with PoFA. The parking operator has provided a copy of the car park site map indicating where signage is located within the car park and time date stamped photographs of the signage within the car park which advises 2 hours free parking, parking tariffs apply after 2 hours free parking, tariffs available, payment methods available and failure to comply will result in a £100 PCN being issued. I am aware that the car park where the vehicle entered and exited is monitored by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. All accessible entry and exit points in this area have a ANPR camera in place which takes an infrared image of a vehicle registration, as the vehicle passes by. The system then identifies the vehicle registration mark (VRM) from these images, after which the total time the vehicle remained on site is calculated, recorded and compared with any parking time purchased/the advertised terms and conditions. The parking operator has supplied images obtained from the ANPR camera that shows the vehicle entering the car park on the 2 February 2025 at [***] and exited at [***] the same day (2 hours and [***] minutes). The appellant advises that they submitted an appeal to the parking operator on the 19 February 2025, and the parking operator broke BPA Code of Practice section 8.4.1 because it did not conclude a response to their appeal within 28 days, nor, having harassed them to provide information that I told them unequivocally in their appeal that they would not obtain. The appellant states that the parking operator has always identified itself to them as "Parking Eye Ltd", not under the name "Parking Eye Ltd including Car Parking Partnership (CPP) - EW". Its use of two different names is something they urge to be investigated. This sectors Code of Practice which was jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal, however POPLA's role is to determine if a PCN has been issued correctly due to any breach in the terms and conditions of use of a car park and is unable to comment on how a parking operator has handled an appeal. If the appellant wishes to explore this aspect of their appeal further, direct contact to the parking operator should be made or they may wish to raise this directly with the BPA. The appellant states the evidence provided by the parking operator is not relevant. The appellant states that they consider the PCN to be void, and look forward to receiving confirmation of POPLA's agreement to this effect. I have reviewed the photographs of the signage within the car park, where it is located within the car park and also the whitelist provided that the parking operator that confirms that no payment was received for the duration that the vehicle remained in situ on the car park on the day the PCN was issued (after the free 2 hour duration had expired). I am satisfied that this validates the terms and conditions of use of the car park where breached. As the appellants appeal has been refused, any further discussions regarding payment of the PCN should be made directly to the parking operator. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, due to remaining on the car park for longer than the permitted free stay, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.
Dear Sir/Madam,
We are writing to inform you that we are now in receipt of the decision from POPLA concerning your recent appeal.
This notification confirms that the appeal has been refused and the full Parking Charge amount is now due to the Operator.
From: [***]
To: philip.boynes@parkingeye.co.uk
Subject: order to desist
Dear Mr Boynes,
The legal position remains exactly the same as it was in February. You have no right to transfer liability to keeper in Scotland.
This is a formal order to desist from demanding money from me with menaces, and formal notice that in the event that you continue to do so you may face prosecution under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Yours sincerely,
[***]
Dear POPLA Team,
Let me begin by noting that the operator has always identified itself to me as "Parking Eye Ltd", not under the name "Parking Eye Ltd including Car Parking Partnership (CPP) - EW". Its use of two different names is something I urge you to investigate.
As far as the 51-page document that they have submitted to you entitled "OP Case Summary" is concerned, it contains in my estimation absolutely nothing whatsoever that is relevant
1) to the grounds stated in the appeal that I filed with them,
2) to the fact that they failed to answer the said appeal until four months later (three months after the BPA deadline) and have never responded to it substantively, or
3) to the grounds stated in my appeal to you, which are covered under points 1) and 2).
The points of the appeal I submitted to you continue to stand, and they have not been challenged substantively by Parking Eye Ltd. It is presumably not your role to make their case for them, and since they haven't made a substantive response to my appeal I trust you will acknowledge that they haven't made one and treat their baseless attempt to contest my appeal in the way it patently obviously deserves.
I consider the PCN to be void, and I look forward to hearing confirmation of your agreement to this effect. Whether or not I receive such confirmation, I shall continue to regard the PCN as void and I shall continue to regard this operator's demand that I pay them some money to be without good cause, unenforceable, and such that it will constitute a further case of harassment if they repeat it.
Yours sincerely,
[***]
Dear Mr Boynes,
I'm still waiting for your confirmation that you've cancelled the invoice you sent me, which you pompously described as a "charge notice".
Whether you try to locate the driver of the vehicle is up to you. Keeper liability doesn't apply in Scotland (where you know I am based), and in any case you failed to issue a substantive response to my appeal within the BPA-mandated 28 days, only sending me an email (which didn't even refer to my grounds of appeal) after 121 days, shortly after the BPA contacted you because I required them to.
You certainly don't have a valid claim on me for anything - and it's in your interests to recognise this.
[***]
Dear [***]
May I open by introducing myself. I am the Head of Parking on Private Land at the BPA . Your email to Andrew Pester and the associated email trail has been shared with me to review and provide a response to.
At the BPA we investigate breaches of our Code of Practice when there is evidence. We cannot handle individual ticket disputes or appeals and therefore cannot compel a member to cancel a charge.
We want to let you know that:
We have thoroughly investigated your complaint.
The decision we made is appropriate.
Our communications with you have met our standards.
You have not provided any new information that changes our view.
We believe we have answered all your questions. In your case an appeal response was not issued and to correct the error, Parking Eye have confirmed the response will be sent out today via email. We believe this to be appropriate rectification.
Since we have explained our position several times and through a number of emails, we consider your correspondence unreasonable. We will not respond further on this matter. Your complaint is now closed.
You can review our policy on unreasonable complaints on Here
We are sorry we cannot help you further.
Sara
Sara Roberts
Head of Parking on Private Land
British Parking Association
Web: www.britishparking.co.uk
Dear Ms Roberts,
Thank you for your email, which I assume you are writing on behalf of Mr Pester.
Nobody was asking you to handle an individual ticket dispute or appeal, or to compel a member to cancel a charge.
Please do not patronise me by saying that you "want" to "let me know" that your decision is "appropriate" - an adjective that in this case is practically free of meaning.
Please do not tell me that you have explained things several times as if I am the one with comprehension problems.
Please do not tell me that you feel I have been unreasonable. It is not every day that I am told I am unreasonable by a head of department employed by a cartel of thugs.
The fact is that your own rules say that a member, if they are to issue a substantive response to an appeal, must do so within 28 days. The information is that this member didn't. That means that anything they do after the 28 days is not the issuing of a substantive response. That's not "information". It's logic. And believe me, it will stand up in court. Parking Eye only sent me today's email 121 days after they received my appeal, after you reminded them of their breach. Their email is not a response to my appeal in the formal sense. (For your information, nor does it even refer to the grounds of my appeal.)
That you have not answered all my questions is verifiable. Do not tell me black is white.
This matter is likely to continue, with further damage to the BPA's reputation, if the "PCN" with my name on it is considered still to be valid, despite a) the non-applicability of keeper liability in Scotland and b) the admitted breach of your rules which by common practice and custom would determine the automatic upholding of my appeal.
Hopefully I will not need to explain these points to you again.
Yours sincerely,
[***]
Cc: Andrew Pester
Dear [***]
Thank you for your email.
Our role is to investigate breaches of our Code of Practice where evidence can be supplied and to rectify any identified breaches. On this occasion, a breach of the Code was identified, and we believe appropriate rectification occurred.
Please note we are not obliged to continue to correspond about issues we have already addressed.
If we receive further correspondence of this nature, we will deem it as unreasonable and/or vexatious and therefore we will invoke our unreasonable complaints and vexatious communications policy. Please find below a link to the policy for your information:
UnreasonableComplaintsandVexatiousCommunicationsPolicyMarch2025.pdf
Kind regards
Gemma Dorans
AOS Investigations Team
Dear Mr Boynes,
It seems you have a problem with this employee. I will not stand for being told black is white.
Information regarding this whole matter is being circulated.
I await your conformation that you have advised your member to cancel this "parking charge notice".
Sincerely
[***]
Dear Mr Boynes (Cc: Dave Smith),***
The email that I sent to you at 1.01pm today was misaddressed and I meant to send it (and address it) to somebody else. My apologies for this error.
Nonetheless, you are past the 1pm deadline and I have not heard from you that you have cancelled your "parking charge notice" that you issued in February with my name on it, against which I filed an appeal to which you failed to issue a substantive response within the BPA-mandated 28 days.
Liability is not transferable to a registered keeper outside the English jurisdiction, nor in any case is the PCN still extant given that you failed to respond to the appeal. Whether you try to find the driver is up to you, but the PCN issued to me as registered keeper at the time is certainly void.
Because you missed the deadline, I am now circulating information including correspondence with yourselves.
I realise your reputation is extremely poor, but in the interests of protecting it from further free fall into the gutter, you may like to confirm that you have cancelled your "notice" even at this tardy stage. At the present point I have not started proceedings for harassment but reserve the right to do so.
Yours sincerely,
[***]
***
(To: contactdpo@britishparking.co.uk )
Dear Sirs,
Kindly send me all personal data concerning myself that you hold in connection with matters concerning PCN [***], which was issued to me with my name on it by your member Parking Eye. For the avoidance of doubt, this data includes all correspondence that has passed concerning this PCN or any matters arising from it between the BPA and Parking Eye, including (inter alia) all items sent by or to your employee Ms Gemma Dorans.
Please acknowledge receipt of this request.
Name: [***]
Address: [***]
Registered keeper of vehicle reg. [***] throughout February 2025
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
[***]
Dear [***],
Thank you for your email, the contents in which have been noted.
Please be advised when a breach of the Code occurs, we always look at what rectification can occur to correct the mistake. In your case an appeal response was not issued and to correct the error, Parking Eye have confirmed the response will be sent out today via email.
We believe this to be appropriate rectification. Please note we do not become involved with individual ticket disputes and therefore cannot compel a member to cancel a charge. The appeals process is there for that. Therefore, if your appeal is rejected, you will be provided with details on how to appeal to POPLA – the independent appeals service. If you wish to contest the charge further, we suggest you follow the POPLA process.
If you wish to correspond with Parking Eye regarding your position, you will need to liaise with them directly.
Please note our complaints policy below:
BPAComplaintsPolicyandProcedureV3-GD.pdf
I would like to draw your attention to the below contained within our complaints policy:
Complaints will only be accepted regarding the behaviour of an employee. Any concerns related to our decisions made under the Code of Practice will not be reviewed.
The BPA maintains the authority to decline an escalation if it does not meet the criteria for a complaint.
As we believe the Operator has acted appropriately following the Code breach, the case will remain closed, and we will be unable to enter into further correspondence with you. Any correspondence received will be logged but not responded to.
Kind regards
Gemma Dorans
AOS Investigations Team
Dear Ms Dorans,
Did you pass my email to your line manager as requested?
Your association has rules, which it should enforce. You told me unequivocally and in writing that your member had 28 days to respond substantively to an appeal. It did not do so. The cut-and-pasted email that it sent me today cannot possibly be a response, because it is out of time. (For your information, it does not even address the grounds of my appeal and it makes the elementary legal error of assuming I am under an obligation to prove something.)
Kindly accept the point that a response sent after 28 days is out of time, or ask your line manager to accept this point. This is what it means to say that an operator has 28 days to respond.
It is obviously within the power and authority of the BPA to tell one of its members that it will not support them any further in the event that they do not cancel this PCN. Kindly do this. It would simply not be true to say that you can't do this. You can do it.
I am Cc: ing this to Andrew Pester and Dave Smith. I am still expecting to hear by 1pm that the PCN has been cancelled. Neither the BPA nor Parking Eye have much of a reputation, but what reputation they do possess can fall further.
Yours sincerely,
[***]
Cc: Andrew Pester (andrew.p@britishparking.co.uk), Dave Smith (media@britishparking.co.uk)
Reference: Parking Charge Notice - [***]
POPLA Ref: [***]
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your appeal in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 02 February 2025
at [***], at Welcome Break Charnock Richard-Chorley (South) car park.
We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal, but we are not in receipt of
sufficient evidence to confirm that the terms and conditions were not breached. Our
records confirm that no parking was purchased on the date of the parking event, despite
there being payment methods available.
We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you
have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.
If you wish to have your case independently assessed, please be advised, there is an
independent appeals service (POPLA) which is available to motorists who have had an
appeal rejected by a British Parking Association Approved Operator. Contact information
and further information can be found enclosed. See also www.popla.co.uk
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-
services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent
to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative
dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to
POPLA, as explained above.
Please note, if the Parking Charge was issued in Scotland/Northern Ireland, only the
driver can appeal to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals).
As a gesture of goodwill, we have extended the discount period for a further 14 days from
the date of this correspondence. If you appeal to POPLA, you will not be able to pay the
discounted amount in settlement of the Parking Charge, and the full value of the charge
will be outstanding. In addition, if your appeal to POPLA is unsuccessful, you will no
longer be able to pay the discounted amount and the full value of the charge will be due.
A payment can be made by telephoning 0330 555 4444, by visiting
www.parkingeye.co.uk/payments or alternatively by posting a cheque/postal order to
Parkingeye Ltd, PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ. Please ensure you write your reference
number on the reverse of any cheque/postal order so the payment can be allocated.
If you have received this correspondence via email, please allow 24 hours for our
systems to reflect the discounted value before making a payment via our automated
payment line or website.
Yours faithfully,
Parkingeye Team
Dear Mr Boynes,
I have received a further email from your company today. (See below, and attachment.) It was sent from a "no reply" address, so I am replying to you directly.
It is not a response to my appeal, because
1. Under BPA rules such responses must be issued within 28 days.
2. Whoever wrote it seems to think my appeal was on the grounds that a car park operator's terms and conditions weren't breached. It wasn't.
3. Whoever wrote it seems to think I am under some kind of obligation to prove something, insofar as they write that "we are not in receipt of sufficient evidence to confirm that the terms and conditions were not breached". I am not under any obligation to prove anything.
Please confirm by 1pm that the PCN with my name on it is void. If you wish to try to find the driver, you can do so - but as I have indicated several times, do not expect any assistance from me.
Yours sincerely,
[***]
Dear [***],
I have investigated your complaint with the Operator and can advise as follows.
The Operator has confirmed that the signage at the Welcome Break confirms tariffs apply after 2 hours. The vehicle remained within the car park for 2 hours and 34 minutes and Parking Eye have no record of a parking period being purchased.
Parking Eye have confirmed an appeal was submitted by the registered keeper stating that the driver will not be identified. An appeal response was issued to you asking for confirmation of the driver which Parking Eye are entitled to do. Unfortunately, no details of the driver were received. Usually if no response is received to their request for further information, a formal response is sent regardless. On this occasion this did not happen. To rectify the matter a formal response will be sent to your appeal today via email and further investigations will take place to ascertain why this did not happen on this occasion.
Parking Eye have also confirmed that 5 separate submissions were received through the complaints process dated 6 March, 24 March, 29 March, 5 April and 17 April all raising the same grounds of appeal and confirming you did not agree to Parking Eye’s privacy policy. A response was sent to you to confirm that as you did not agree to the privacy policy, they were unable to process your complaint in line with their obligations under GDPR.
We believe the appropriate rectification has occurred regarding your appeal response being issued today and therefore will close the case.
Kind regards
Gemma Dorans
AOS Investigations Team
Dear Ms Dorans,
Please forward this reply to your line manager.
You stated unambiguously that your members have 28 days to respond substantively to an appeal. They did not respond to my appeal within this period, and therefore they may not do so afterwards. Any communication they send me will not be a substantive response to my appeal because a substantive response must be issued within 28 days.
Your use of the words "unfortunately" and "on this occasion" suggest that you are taking the mickey. It does not matter what you consider to be unfortunate, and it is obviously only this member's failure to respond to this appeal that we are talking about, not any other "occasions" on which they may or may not have done something else.
Complaints are separate from appeals and follow separate rules, so what you say about complaint handling is irrelevant to the matter of your member's failure to issue a substantive response to my appeal.
Their failure to respond is not a matter that can be subject to "rectification" several months later.
I consider the PCN to be void. It is obvious that liability may not be transferred to a keeper resident in Scotland. It is also obvious that I do not have any obligation to agree to your member's "privacy policy" (which the law mandates to protect me, not to protect a gang of car park scammers who are in the business of demanding money with menaces), so this correspondence is now closed.
You are hereby notified that I will not accept any further correspondence from your member on any matter, and any communication they send me will be considered harassment. Since you clearly speak on their behalf by telling me what they will do later today, I am sending this notice to you so that you can forward it to them. If you send correspondence on their behalf, you can also receive it on their behalf. Let me spell it out: if Parking Eye contact me again in any matter, their action will be considered to be harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Kindly acknowledge receipt of this email and confirm that you have forwarded it to your line manager.
Yours sincerely,
[***]
[***]
Attn: Dave Smith, Head of Communications, British Parking Association
Dave,
Any comments on this matter before I circulate it? I consider the PCN to be void for reasons stated. Might be useful reputation-wise if you can confirm agreement from your end. Just to give you the heads up.
Best to let me know by 1pm today if you can.
Regards,
[***]
Dear Mr Boynes,
This is just to confirm that
1. Your PCN [***] is considered fully void because you failed to respond substantively to my appeal within the period of 28 days set down by the BPA and because no substantive response is possible because you are out of time.
2. There will be no identification of the driver.
3. There is no lawful basis for transferring liability to a keeper resident in Scotland.
4. I am circulating information about your actions.
5. I expect confirmation by 1pm today that you agree that the PCN is void.
Yours sincerely,
[***]
Dear [***],
Thank you for your email, the contents in which have been noted.
Please may I remind you to communicate with us in a respectful and polite way. Please note our policy below:
UnreasonableComplaintsandVexatiousCommunicationsPolicyMarch2025.pdf
I will be in touch once I have completed my investigation with Parking Eye.
Kind regards
Gemma Dorans
AOS Investigations Team
Dear Ms Doran,
Why did you send me that document about unreasonable complaints and vexatious communications? I have no intention of reading it at the present time.
This is patently obviously an open and shut case - your member breached your code by failing to respond substantively to my appeal within 28 days. When this was brought to your attention, you suggested they may have issued a response that got lost in the post. Please be aware that statements you make have consequences in how you are viewed.
Would you be so kind as to tell me a target date by which you aim to tell me what you have decided after you have conducted your investigation?
Yours sincerely,
[***]
Attn: [***],
9 June 2025
[***]
Dear [***],
I received an email from you dated 6 May 2025 in which you said you were unable at that time to provide a full response to me about this matter, because the matter was complex, and in which you promised either to send a full response or a further update within 10 working days. Nearly five weeks have now passed but I have received no further communications from you.
Please can you provide an email address at which I can write to you, so that I can keep a full record of our correspondence using my email client, as per normal business procedure, rather than having to type inside a box on a webpage and to save after cutting and pasting.
Yours sincerely,
[***]
Dear [***],
Thank you for your reply.
To assist with our investigation, it would be helpful for you to provide us with a copy of the correspondence received from Parking Eye. Once received we will review and advise further.
We note you advised Parking Eye did not respond to your appeal. It is possible a response has been sent but not received. Operators do have 28 days to respond to an appeal. However, a breach of our Code does not invalidate a parking charge, therefore we cannot confirm that your charge has been cancelled.
Please provide the information requested so we can advise further.
Kind regards
Gemma Dorans
AOS Investigations Team
Dear Ms Dorans,
I have received your email of 4 June 2025, and I note your ludicrous assertion that perhaps your member sent a response to my appeal but unfortunately it got lost in the post.
Here is a copy of my appeal:
**************
19 February 2025
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I reside in Scotland. I deny any liability or contractual obligation to you or your client.
There will be no identification of the driver, and you are not permitted to hold me liable for the charge you allege was incurred by the driver, for the simple reason that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) - in particular, paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 - does not apply here in Scotland.
You are in flagrant breach of Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) in that you have issued a Notice to Keeper containing a PoFA warning when you know that PoFA does not apply in Scotland.
There are several other legal problems with your Notice, which I shall not mention here because the above is fully sufficient to show that ParkingEye have absolutely no hope of success at POPLA - so kindly save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN without delay.
I am ticking the box saying "I confirm I have attached all supporting information available to me, and understand that I will be unable to provide any additional evidence at a later date, unless specifically requested by Parkingeye", but the only reason I am ticking it is because you have configured your software not to accept appeals from appellants who do not tick it. I absolutely do not "confirm" as stated, and I reserve the right to submit whatever evidence I choose at a later time.
**********
Here is a copy of your member's acknowledgement of their receipt of my appeal.
*********
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 [***]
Subject: Automated Response: Appeal Received [***]
From: Parkingeye Ltd <no-reply@parkingeye.net>
To: [***]
Thank you for contacting Parkingeye, we acknowledge receipt of your appeal.
We endeavour to respond to all appeals as soon as possible. Whilst we consider an appeal the parking charge amount will not increase. Please note that a full written response may take up to 28 days.
Kind Regards,
Parkingeye Appeals Team
**********
Here is a copy of the non-substantive and criminally harassing response I received from your member regarding my appeal:
**********
05 March 2025
Reference: Parking Charge Notice - [***]
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 02 February 2025 at [***], at Welcome Break Charnock Richard-Chorley (South) car park.
We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been referred for further information.
You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the breach of the terms and conditions of the car park, but you have not indicated who was.
You have already been notified that under section 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the full name and the current postal address of the driver.
You are warned that if, after 29 days from the Date of Issue, the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you, the registered keeper. This warning is given to you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under schedule 4 of that Act.
Please note, if you have made or wish to make an appeal on behalf of the driver, and you do not provide the full name and current postal address of the driver, Parkingeye will be obliged to deal with the representations made in your name.
Parkingeye have placed this charge on hold for 28 days to enable you to provide the evidence requested. If this information is not provided within 28 days, the appeal may well be rejected and a POPLA code provided.
Parkingeye Limited, 40 Eaton Avenue Buckshaw Village, Chorley, PR7 7NA,
Registered in England, Registration No. 5134454
Alternatively, payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444 or by visiting www.parkingeye.co.uk or by posting a cheque or postal order to
ParkingEye Ltd,
PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ.
Yours faithfully,
Parkingeye Team
Further Information
Photographic evidence
The Parking Charge Notice contains further details of the parking event and includes date and time stamped photographs of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park.
You can also view photographs of the vehicle via our driver portal by using the following link
https://portal.parkingeye.co.uk/.
To access the portal you will need to enter your Parking Charge reference number and vehicle registration details.
**********
I confirm that I have still not received a substantive response to my appeal. Obviously given that 1) your member is obliged to follow your code, 2) you have clearly stated that it has 28 days to issue a substantive response, and 3) it has failed to issue a substantive response within that time, it is now impossible for it to issue a substantive response because any "response" it may purport to issue will be out of time.
I have corresponded with your member regarding complaints I submitted to it, which it has refused to consider, citing my declining to agree to its privacy policies (which obviously I am under no obligation to do, and the purpose of which anyway is to protect me, not to protect your member). However, as you are surely aware, complaints are not the same as appeals and they are processed independently. What I am corresponding with you about at the moment concerns my appeal, not any complaints I have submitted to your member. If I wish to bring its handling of such complaints to your attention at some future point, I will do so. If I do not wish to do so, I will not do so. Kindly keep your focus on the matter in hand: my appeal, and your member's failure to issue a substantive response.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
[***]
Dear [***],
Thank you for your email, the contents in which have been noted.
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is applicable to parking events that occur in England and Wales. We do not believe the Operator has breached the Code here for holding the keeper liable as they do not know the name and address of the driver on the day of the alleged contravention.
In regard to your appeal and complaint, we can review this further. You mentioned Parking Eye refused to respond due to you not agreeing to their privacy and complaints policy. To assist our investigation, can you please forward to us a copy of this exchange.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Gemma Dorans
AOS Investigations Team
Dear Ms Dorans,
You are mistaken in your understanding of the applicability of the transfer of liability to a registered keeper, and it is obvious that the fact that the operator does not know the name and address of the driver does not in itself imply that the transfer of liability to a registered keeper is lawfully possible outside of the English jurisdiction. That there exists a car park inside the English jurisdiction where English law applies is not in dispute.
For the time being, and before we correspond about anything else, please address the matter of what Laura Cox on behalf of the BPA told me on 12 May 2025, which was that the operator "has 28 days to respond" to my appeal. I submitted my appeal 106 days ago on 19 February 2025 and the operator has not issued a substantive response. The number 106 is a lot bigger than the number 28. So kindly confirm that given that they have not responded, the PCN is now void. Do you agree? Is the answer "yes" or is it "no"? If it is "no", then what is the meaning of the BPA's unambiguous statement that an operator must respond to an appeal within 28 days?
The relevant fact here is that the operator has not responded to my appeal. There is no disagreement that the operator received my appeal. If required in legal proceedings at a later date, I can certainly instruct the furnishing of copies of the operator's emails in which they referred to their privacy policy, but the matter of whether or not I confirm my agreement to their privacy policy (or to anything else) is totally and utterly irrelevant to their failure to respond substantively to my appeal. I appealed. There has been no substantive response. Those are the relevant facts.
All you need to do is to confirm that the operator has not responded substantively to my appeal. Ask them. If they say they have responded substantively, they will be lying. For my own part, I am telling the truth and I am willing to repeat on oath on pain of perjury that I have not received any substantive response to my appeal. The operator's harassing demand that I identify the driver, even after I specifically told them there would be no identification, is not a substantive response to my appeal. A substantive response would have specified whether they rejected or upheld the appeal.
So all you have to do is to confirm that they have not responded, and then confirm to me at your earliest convenience that the PCN, as per your email to me dated 12 May 2025, is void.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
[***]
I repeat my demand that you tell me who exactly you shared my data with. (Point 2 of my email.)For similar reasons I mentioned here (broadly the same would be true of DVLA as ParkingEye - I think you'd be unlikely to be entitled to the names of specific employees to whom any data may have been sent. What their role is, and for what purpose data was shared with them is of course a different matter):
At least some of the black rectangles may comprise data that would not be your personal data.
The name of the person at ParkingEye who sent the email, for example, may not be in scope in a SAR response. The entity processing your data would likely be viewed as ParkingEye, not John Smith working for ParkingEye.
Dear [***],
Thank you for your email.
The redacted version (black rectangles) is the information shared with the DVLA and what was included in the zip file. You also have the unredacted version as part of your Subject Access Request as this was issued to yourself.
We refer you to our privacy policy which contains more information which meets ICO guidelines and is accessible online.
However, for ease of reference we have copied some details you refer to below.
How will we process your data and why do we process it?
When using Parkingeye car parks, personal data is collected and processed for the purposes of:
• Ensuring you comply with the parking terms and conditions, as displayed on signage throughout each car park, and to enforce those terms and conditions where necessary.
• Issuing a parking charge where the parking terms and conditions have been breached.
• Progressing any issued parking charge to closure or payment, which includes receipt of, reviewing and responding to appeals (both internal and with POPLA) and seeking payment of the parking charge amount. Recovery may include collections undertaken via the use of debt collection agents and/or legal action (where required) and / or verification of your address.
• Providing car park management services, including the prevention and detection of crime, and data analytics.
Our lawful bases for processing data are Performance of a Contract and Legitimate Interests. If you are the driver of a vehicle using a Parkingeye car park, your data is collected and processed as necessary for the performance of the parking contract. This includes ensuring you comply with the parking terms and conditions, as displayed on signage throughout each car park, and to enforce those terms and conditions where necessary.
We and our third party processors will also process data in pursuit of our, the landowners, and the public’s legitimate interests including:
• The enforcement of breaches of the parking terms and conditions where the recipient of the parking charge was not the driver of the vehicle. Enforcement of breaches of the parking terms and conditions ensures a better overall parking experience for all users of the facilities.
• The provision of an effective appeals service, which is provided in line with the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice. Where the parking charge was issued in England and Wales, this includes an opportunity for all motorists to lodge an appeal with the Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA) service should their appeal to us be rejected. Progressing the parking charges we issue, either to closure or payment, supports the parking services we offer.
• The provision of an effective car park management service to improve the customer experience. – Displaying images of vehicles on payment machines and/or terminals to assist car park users to identify their entry time and select the appropriate tariff payment. – Sharing information with the landowner where they have agreed to provide parking permits to certain individuals (e.g. staff parking permits), or where a payment account for specified vehicles has been agreed. and, where necessary, to assist with the administration of the parking enforcement operation on site. – Carrying out data analytics, including reporting on vehicle turnover, vehicle type and repeat visits. – Providing data to the police and other security organisations to assist with the prevention and detection of crime (as appropriate).
• As part of the audit processes undertaken by the DVLA and BPA.
Data may be processed at a destination outside the European Economic Area but we have implemented and ensured the safeguards required by data protection law.
Who do we share data with?
In order to enforce the parking contract where a breach has been identified and to support the legitimate interests explained above, we may share data with the following organisations:
• Vehicle licensing agencies, such as the DVLA or an international equivalent. This includes sharing data to obtain the contact name and address details of a vehicle’s registered keeper, as well as sharing for audit purposes.
• The police or other security organisations for the safety and security of car park users, and in order to prevent and detect crime.
• Vehicle hire and lease companies where they confirm that a vehicle was on hire or leased on the date that that vehicle was captured parked in breach of the parking terms and conditions.
• Other organisations such as the British Parking Association (BPA), the Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA) service for parking events in England and Wales, Euro Parking Collection plc, landowners, managing agents, tenants, our press office or agency (where related to media/press query), and any authorised sub-contractors, such as mail service providers, business process outsourcers, credit reference agencies, collection agents, legal advisors, IT service providers, and payment service providers.
How long will we keep your data for?
There are certain reasons why we keep hold of some of your data. How long we keep your data for depends upon the type of data we hold and the purpose(s) for which it was collected and processed. We may hold some of your data with third parties, but where we do we ensure these third parties are also only keep the data only for as long as necessary and adhere to our retention and deletion policies.We will store your personal data for no longer than necessary to support the purposes explained above.
We retain the personal data we hold about you for up to 6 years from collection in order to respond to any concerns or claims that may arise in that time. This may be extended if related correspondence or claims are on-going, or where a county court judgment has been issued in Parkingeye’s favour and remains outstanding. If you ask us to restrict the way we process your data, or no longer want to receive marketing information from us, we will retain relevant data on suppression lists. This means that we will keep just enough data about you available to ensure that we continue to comply with your reasonable request.
What are your rights as a data subject?
Data protection law gives you the following rights. For further information, including to make a request or ask a question about your rights, please contact our Privacy Team using the details provided below. We will review each request we receive. Under data protection law we do not have to agree with your request but if we refuse your request, we will still contact you within one month to explain why.
To object to the processing of personal data.
In certain circumstances, individuals have the right to object to the processing of personal data. Any such objection must be based on your particular situation. We will review each request we receive and if we refuse your request, We will inform you of the reason why We have not taken action.
To access personal data.
Individuals have the right to request a copy of the data held about them. We are required to verify your identity before passing you information and We may contact you upon receipt of your request to clarify your request. We will be unable to process your request until we have all required information.
To be informed about the processing of personal data.
Individuals have the right to be informed about the collection and use of personal data. This information is contained within this privacy policy, the recorded message at 0333 1235 984, and within the signage located on all sites managed by us.
To request that the processing of personal data be restricted.
Individuals may have the right to request the restriction or suppression of personal data. This right will only apply in certain circumstances.
To request that personal data is corrected if it is inaccurate.
Individuals may request that inaccurate personal data is rectified, or completed if it is incomplete.
To ask that personal data be erased.
The right to erasure is also known as ‘the right to be forgotten’ and individuals can request that their personal data is erased. This right will only apply in certain circumstances.
To request to move, copy or transfer personal data (“Data Portability”).
The right to data portability allows individuals to move, copy or transfer personal data easily from one IT environment to another. This right will only apply in certain circumstances.
Rights relating to automated decision making, including profiling
Individuals have the right to be given information about such processing, request human intervention or challenge a decision. This right will only apply in certain circumstances.
We are satisfied that having now provided all of the information we hold for yourself as per your Right of Access pursuant to Article 15 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) that we have acted in accordance with our obligations to you and as such we do not intend to correspond further on this matter at this stage. We refer you to the points raised above and within our previous correspondence.
For further information about your rights as a data subject, plus information about the categories of data we process, data transfers, the legal basis for our processing, and the purposes of processing, please visit: https://www.Parkingeye.co.uk/privacy-policy/
Yours sincerely,
Parkingeye Privacy Team
Dear Parking Eye Privacy Team,
Thank you for your email.
Unfortunately you have not addressed what I wrote in my email of 9 May 2025, so please an you do so.
In particular:
1. Please do not advise me to go to your website again. This is serious correspondence and you should be aware that you may soon be the defendant in a civil or criminal claim. Kindly acknowledge that you have been asked not to advise me to go to your website, that you understand what this means, and that you will not do it again.
2. Please address the matter of your apparent breaches of sections 1c, 1d, and 1e of Article 15 of the UK GDPR, breaches that I brought to your attention on 9 May. (Point 1 in my email.)
3. Please send me an unredacted version of the correspondence with the DVLA or else cite what specific exemptions you claim under the GDPR for excluding the material you have redacted. Correspondence includes email headers, and I repeat my demand that you tell me who exactly you shared my data with. (Point 2 of my email.)
4. I asked you to include a copy of the .zip file that you included with your email to the DVLA. Kindly do so. If all of its contents were included in the bundle that you sent me, kindly make it clear to me which exact pages in that bundle you are talking about and confirm that no other matter was included in the .zip file. What you say in today's email, namely "The redacted version (black rectangles) is the information shared with the DVLA and what was included in the zip file" is unclear.
5. Note that the PCN is now void, given that according to written and unequivocal confirmation I hold from the BPA an operator has 28 days to respond to an appeal - and in this case the operator received my appeal 92 days ago and has at no point issued a substantive response, a notice of upholding the appeal, or a notice denying the appeal, and it follows that if a "response" were to be issued in the future it could not be deemed to be an actual response since it would obviously be considerably out of time. Kindly acknowledge these facts by return.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
[***]
Dear [***],
Thank you for your response.
If the Protection of Freedoms Act is applied it is based on where the car park is located and not where the Registered Keeper or driver is located.
If you have not received a response to your appeal, we recommend contacting the operator to obtain a copy.
If they can provide a copy of your appeal response, we would not become further involved as we cannot determine what has been sent or received by either party.
You can contact Parkingeye by following the below link: https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/motorist/complaints/
If the operator cannot provide a copy of your appeal response, you can escalate your complaint to us however, we will require a copy of your complaint outcome and any evidence to support your query.
Kind regards
Laura Cox
Compliance Team
British Parking Association
Dear Ms Cox,
First, please stop addressing me my by first name. I had thought you would take the hint when in response to your email in which you did it the first time, I addressed you formally in reply. Clearly I need to be more explicit.
Second, please clarify properly regarding your belief about the transferability of liability to a registered keeper. Do you believe that in the absence of identification of a driver, transferability of liability to the registered keeper applies outside of the England and Wales jurisdiction? Please say either yes or no, and be aware of course that I may quote your answer in legal proceedings or in correspondence with Whitehall.
Third, what exactly are you talking about when you say I should ask Parking Eye for a "copy" of something? They have not sent any substantial response to my appeal. You know that, because I told you. Therefore there is nothing relevant for them to "copy". I should have thought that was obvious. Your last sentence verges on the ludicrous. You say "If the operator cannot provide a copy of your appeal response, you can escalate your complaint to us however, we will require a copy of your complaint outcome and any evidence to support your query." Permit to me assist you to recap. You told me they had 28 days to respond. They have not responded, even after 85 days. Now you advise me to ask them for a copy of their response. You also say that if they don't send me a copy, I can escalate to yourselves but you first require a "copy" of my "complaint outcome". Is English perhaps not your first language? They failed to respond within the 28 days that they had, according to you, to respond. The "evidence" for this is my telling you so in an email. Kindly take this current email as a formal complaint against your hopelessly poor performance in this correspondence. I asked you what you meant by saying Parking Eye had 28 days to respond, and you failed to answer. Kindly pass this email to your supervisor or whoever handles complaints against yourself, so that they can either answer or tell me that you were wrong.
I expect a prompt acknowledgement of your receipt of this email.
Yours sincerely,
[***]
Dear Ms Cox,
Thank you for your email.
1. Please can you address the matter of the inapplicability of the transfer of liability to a keeper registered outside the English jurisdiction. In particular, please can you clarify what the word "It" refers to in the second sentence of your paragraph headed "About your Case". It is an indisputable fact that Schedule 4 of POFA does not apply outside of the England and Wales jurisdiction, as can clearly be confirmed from the legislation itself which is published by the government here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4?view=extent
2. You say the operator has 28 days to respond to my appeal. Please can you explain fully what this means. It is now 82 days since I submitted my appeal to Parking Eye on 19 February 2025 and they have not replied substantively. Should I consider the so-called PCN void?
Kind regards,
[***]
BPA reference: [***]
Parking Charge: [***]
Dear [***],
Thank you for your enquiry.
I can confirm that Parkingeye Limited, also T/A Car Parking Partnership is a member of our Approved Operator Scheme which means that they are required to adhere to our Code of Practice.
Our Role
Our role as an Accredited Trade Association is to investigate alleged breaches of our Code of Practice by members of our Approved Operator Scheme where evidence can be supplied and where the operator’s internal complaints process has been exhausted. We are unable to become involved in individual Parking Charge disputes.
About your Case
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 can be applied to this Parking Charge as it was incurred in England. It is not determined by where the Registered Keeper resides.
Appealing the Parking Charge
A motorist will have 28 days to appeal the Parking Charge if they believe that it was issued incorrectly; the process should be outlined in the Parking Charge.
The operator has 28 days to respond. If the appeal is rejected the operator should provide details on how to further appeal to the free and independent appeals service, POPLA. A further appeal is available via POPLA for 28 days following the operator rejecting the appeal. If you wish to challenge the charge, I would advise following this process.
Next steps
Based on the information you have supplied, I have not identified a breach of point raised in the Code of Practice and therefore I am unable to investigate your complaint further however, if you have not already done so, you may wish to submit your complaint to the operator using their internal complaints policy. If you do not want to submit a complaint via their online form, you may wish to send a letter via post to:
Parkingeye Limited
Complaints Department
40 Eaton Avenue
Buckshaw Village
PR7 7NA
Kind regards
Laura Cox
British Parking Association
Web: www.britishparking.co.uk
For information about what we do with personal data see our Privacy Policy . Please note that we may share with the operator elements of what you have sent us if we believe doing so assists our investigation or helps us to determine whether a breach of our Code of Practice has occurred.
Legal Disclaimers
British Parking Association Registered in England and Wales with Limited Liability
Registered No. 979689. Registered Office: Chelsea House, 8-14 The Broadway,
Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH16 3AP VAT Registration No. GB 600 3376 86
To the DVLA Data Sharing Team/Head of Complaints,
I am writing to follow up on my earlier complaint about ParkingEye Ltd’s misuse of keeper data obtained under the KADOE agreement.
ParkingEye issued a Notice to Keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) to a Scottish address, even though they knew that PoFA does not apply to Scottish residents. This action breaches Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, which states that a parking operator must not serve a notice or include material on its website which in its design or language states that the keeper is liable under PoFA where they cannot be held liable. It therefore breaches the KADOE agreement, which requires that keeper data obtained from the DVLA must only be used in accordance with relevant law and the approved Code of Practice.
If ParkingEye had issued a standard non-PoFA notice, this would not have been a problem, because they would have had to pursue the driver rather than the keeper. Instead, they used DVLA data to issue a document that falsely suggested the keeper could be held liable — something which is not legally possible under PoFA for someone residing in Scotland. This is not a minor error. It is a deliberate misuse of data and a misleading attempt to pressure a keeper into payment based on a legal framework that does not apply.
I also wish to raise concerns about how ParkingEye responded to the DVLA’s inquiry into my original complaint. I have now received a copy of ParkingEye’s internal correspondence and documents through a Subject Access Request. Based on what they disclosed, it appears they may have withheld important information when replying to the DVLA. For example, ParkingEye sent the DVLA an email with a .zip file attachment, but they have not told me what was in that file. If it included a copy of my appeal, as seems likely, they failed to explain or disclose this clearly in their SAR response. Additionally, they redacted the names and email addresses of individuals involved and concealed who else was copied into their reply to the DVLA — meaning I do not have a full record of who has seen or handled my data.
This raises serious questions about transparency and whether the DVLA received full and accurate information during its initial investigation. I ask that you reopen or review this matter in light of these concerns, and treat this as an escalation of my original complaint.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Address]
[Email]
Vehicle Registration: [VRM]
Date: [Insert]
Re. "Parking Charge" Notice Ref: [***]
I assume your email of yesterday's date was for me, even though you wrongly addressed it to [***].
1) Kindly abide by sections 1c, 1d, and 1e of Article 15 of the UK GDPR, without advising me to go to your website which I am unwilling to do. For your information, the said sections state as follows. You have failed to meet your obligations relating to the words in bold.
"1 The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller confirmation as to whether or not personal data concerning him or her are being processed, and, where that is the case, access to the personal data and the following information:
...
c) the recipients or categories of recipient to whom the personal data have been or will be disclosed, in particular recipients in third countries or international organisations;
d) where possible, the envisaged period for which the personal data will be stored, or, if not possible, the criteria used to determine that period;
e) the existence of the right to request from the controller rectification or erasure of personal data or restriction of processing of personal data concerning the data subject or to object to such processing"
2) Kindly remove the black rectangles you have placed over your correspondence with the DVLA so as to make clear to me, as is your statutory duty, who exactly you have shared my data with by Cc: ing it. Do not advise me to go to your website. (See above.)
3) Kindly include a copy of the .zip file that you included with your email to the DVLA.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email by return.
Sincerely,
[***]
Parking Charge Ref: [***]
Dear [***]
We write further to your recent correspondence. We note from this that you have submitted a Request for Access pursuant to Article 15 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR).
We wish to confirm that the response provided below, and via the enclosed documents, concerns the Parking Charge referenced above. This data is provided on the basis that we note that you have already been identified as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in relation to the date of 02/02/2025 and therefore we can be satisfied, to the standard required, that the data collected and processed in respect of that vehicle on that date is personal data pertaining to you.
We can confirm that your name and address were provided by the DVLA on 05/02/2025. This data was provided as you were identified as the registered keeper of vehicle [***] in respect of a breach of the parking terms and conditions that took place within Welcome Break Charnock Richard-Chorley (South) on 02/02/2025.
Parkingeye can confirm that we issued a total of 4 items of correspondence to yourself to date prior to any further recovery or legal action. The address used was the address as held by the DVLA for the Registered Keeper of the vehicle on the date of the parking event.
Please note, it is Parkingeye’s position that this charge was issued following a contractual breach of the terms and conditions in operation onsite, and that we had reasonable cause to request the Registered Keeper’s details from the DVLA. Please note that our lawful bases for processing data are Performance of a Contract and Legitimate Interests. Parkingeye do not rely on Consent as a legal basis for processing data when issuing and pursuing the payment of outstanding Parking Charges. We are registered with the ICO to collect and process data for the purpose of car park management, which includes dealing with appeals and any subsequent recovery action required.
We would also refer you to our Privacy Policy please visit: https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/privacy-policy/ for more information in particular the section regarding who we share data with.
Please note that the UK General Data Protection Regulation provides the following further rights:
• The right to request from Parkingeye access, rectification or erasure of your personal data;
• The right to request from Parkingeye restriction of processing of your personal data;
• The right to object to the processing of your personal data.
Please note that some of these rights are not absolute and will only apply in certain circumstances. We will review each request we receive in respect of these rights. We do not have to agree with a request but if we refuse, we will still contact the data subject within one month to explain why. You also have the right to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). For further information, please refer to the ICO website, www.ico.org.uk. You may also seek a judicial remedy.
For further information about your rights as a data subject, plus information about the categories of data we process, data transfers, the legal basis for our processing, and the purposes of processing, please visit: https://www.Parkingeye.co.uk/privacy-policy/
Yours sincerely,
Parkingeye Privacy Team
The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller confirmation as to whether or not personal data concerning him or her are being processed, and, where that is the case, access to the personal data and the following information:
1 The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller confirmation as to whether or not personal data concerning him or her are being processed, and, where that is the case, access to the personal data and the following information:
...
c) the recipients or categories of recipient to whom the personal data have been or will be disclosed, in particular recipients in third countries or international organisations;
d) where possible, the envisaged period for which the personal data will be stored, or, if not possible, the criteria used to determine that period;
e) the existence of the right to request from the controller rectification or erasure of personal data or restriction of processing of personal data concerning the data subject or to object to such processing;
Subject: Data Protection Complaint – ParkingEye Ltd's Unlawful Consent Practices and Threatened Deletion of Complaint Correspondence
To the Information Commissioner’s Office,
I am submitting this complaint concerning the conduct of ParkingEye Ltd, a private parking enforcement company, in relation to their handling of my personal data.
I am the registered keeper of a vehicle and reside in Scotland. ParkingEye obtained my data from the DVLA following an alleged parking contravention in England. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) does not apply in Scotland, and therefore ParkingEye has no lawful basis to pursue me as keeper.
I submitted an appeal to ParkingEye on 19 February 2025, and several formal complaints thereafter regarding:• Their failure to respond to my appeal within the mandatory 28-day period (now 63 days without a response); and
• Their improper conduct and misrepresentation of data rights.
ParkingEye's responses to my complaints have been deeply concerning. Specifically:1 They stated that they refuse to process my complaint unless I confirm my agreement to their Privacy Policy and Complaints Policy;
2 They threatened that my correspondence would be deleted unless I agree to those policies;
3 Their complaint portal forced me to tick mandatory consent boxes before submitting my communication;
4 Despite ticking these boxes under protest, ParkingEye refused to process my complaint, claiming that I “do not agree” to their policies.
I believe these practices violate the UK GDPR on the following grounds:• Consent was not freely given, as required by Article 4(11) and Article 7;
• Their processing is not grounded in consent, but in legitimate interest, under Article 6(1)(f) – meaning refusal to process complaints without “agreement” is unlawful;
• The threat to delete data (my complaints and associated correspondence) constitutes a breach of Articles 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(c) (data must be processed lawfully and fairly);
• They are failing to uphold my rights under Article 12 to effective and transparent communication.
I enclose relevant correspondence showing these practices, including ParkingEye’s statements that they will delete my complaint unless I “agree” to their policies.
Please investigate and confirm whether these practices are in breach of the UK GDPR.
Yours faithfully,
[Full Name]
[Postal Address]
[Email Address]
Vehicle Registration: [VRM]
Date of Complaint: [Insert date]
Subject: Request for Assistance – Abuse of Personal Data and Denial of Rights by ParkingEye Ltd
Dear [MSP's Name],
I am a constituent and write to ask for your assistance in a matter involving an unregulated private parking company, ParkingEye Ltd, which has:• Obtained my personal data from the DVLA, despite the fact I am a Scottish resident;
• Sent me a Notice to Keeper for a parking incident that allegedly occurred in England, citing legislation (the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) that has no legal effect in Scotland;
• Failed to respond to a formal appeal I submitted over 60 days ago, in breach of regulatory standards;
• Repeatedly refused to handle my complaints unless I agree to their Privacy Policy, even threatening to delete my correspondence unless I confirm that agreement.
I have lodged formal complaints with the DVLA, the British Parking Association (BPA), and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), but am also seeking parliamentary support due to the cross-border misuse of legal powers and the risk to data subjects in Scotland.
This case raises serious concerns about:• Abuse of DVLA keeper data to pursue unenforceable demands;
• Lack of redress for Scottish keepers;
• Misuse of privacy policies to deny complaints handling;
• Broader implications of private companies misapplying English law in Scotland.
I would be grateful if you could raise this issue directly with the DVLA, the BPA, and/or the relevant UK department (DLUHC) or ask Parliamentary Questions on the wider regulatory problem.
Thank you for your time and assistance.
Yours sincerely,
[Full Name]
[Postal Address]
[Email Address]
Constituent of [your constituency]
Date: [Insert date]
"Dear [***],
We note from your correspondence that you do not agree to the Complaints Policy or our Privacy Policy. As such, we will be unable to process your complaint. We can confirm that your correspondence will be deleted following this response being issued. If you would like Parkingeye to process your complaint, you must confirm your agreement to our Complaints Policy and Privacy Policy. This is a requirement to ensure that we comply with our obligations under UK GDPR.
Kind regards,
Parkingeye Complaints Team"
"Refusal to Process Complaint – Misuse of Privacy Policy as Obstruction
Dear ParkingEye Complaints Team,
Ref. Complaints numbers #[***] and #[***]
Thank you for your response. However, your refusal to process my complaint on the grounds that I did not “agree” to your Privacy Policy or Complaints Policy is wholly misconceived.
I explicitly stated that I clicked the consent boxes under protest, solely to enable submission of my complaint. That act does not equate to agreement, particularly where you have configured your system to reject complaints unless those boxes are ticked, thereby rendering consent not freely given and invalid under UK GDPR.
Your Privacy Policy does not and cannot override statutory obligations under:
1. The UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
2. The Data Protection Act 2018
3. The BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), including sections 8.4.1 and 11.3
4. Your contractual obligations under your DVLA KADOE agreement
You issued a Notice to Keeper to a Scottish address containing a PoFA warning that has no legal application. You then failed to respond to a valid appeal submitted on 19 February 2025 and ignored my formal complaint of 6 March 2025. When a reminder was sent, your only response was to inform me that you would delete my complaint — an extraordinary stance in breach of your obligations as a BPA member and data controller.
I now give notice that unless you confirm within 5 working days that:
1. My appeal has been processed and a full response issued;
2. My formal complaint has been logged and will be handled in accordance with section 11.3 of the PPSCoP; and
3. My personal data will not be deleted pending resolution of the matter
I will escalate the matter to:
• The British Parking Association (BPA), citing non-compliance with the PPSCoP and improper obstruction of the complaints process
• The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), citing refusal to comply with Articles 5 and 6 of the UK GDPR and unjustified data deletion
No further deflection will be accepted. If you persist in refusing to process my complaint, I will ask the relevant authorities to determine the matter.
Note that once again the only reason I have ticked the two boxes regarding your "complaints policy" and "privacy policy" is because you have configured your software not to accept this communication if I do not. No agreement with them is to be inferred.
Yours faithfully,
[***]
Keeper of vehicle registration: [***]"
"Subject: Failure to Respond to Appeal
PCN No. [***]
Dear ParkingEye Complaints Team,
This is a supplementary item to my existing complaint concerning the misuse of my personal data and the unlawful disclosure of appeal content to the DVLA.
I now additionally note that more than 56 days have passed since I submitted my appeal on 19 February 2025, and ParkingEye has not provided a substantive response. The only correspondence received was a demand for the driver’s identity on 5 March, which ignored the actual content of the appeal and failed to address any of the grounds I raised.
Your delay breaches:
• Clause 8.4 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which requires a written response to an appeal within 28 days;
• Clause 11.4 of the PPSCoP, which applies the same 28-day standard to complaints;
• And the eight-week maximum response time reflected in guidance issued by the Financial Ombudsman Service, Ombudsman Services, and general consumer redress frameworks, including the British Standard for complaints handling (BS ISO 10002). These standards collectively establish 28 days as the normal expectation for responding to appeals or complaints and 56 days (8 weeks) as the upper limit before the matter may be escalated.
This procedural failure will also be noted in any complaint escalated to the Information Commissioner’s Office and the British Parking Association.
No inference is to be drawn from my clicking of buttons you oblige complainants to click when submitting complaints.
Yours sincerely,
[***]
17 April 2025"
Subject: Failure to Respond to Appeal
PCN No. [***]
Dear ParkingEye Complaints Team,
This is a supplementary item to my existing complaint concerning the misuse of my personal data and the unlawful disclosure of appeal content to the DVLA.
I now additionally note that more than 56 days have passed since I submitted my appeal on 19 February 2025, and ParkingEye has not provided a substantive response. The only correspondence received was a demand for the driver’s identity on 5 March, which ignored the actual content of the appeal and failed to address any of the grounds I raised.
Your delay breaches:
• Clause 8.4 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which requires a written response to an appeal within 28 days;
• Clause 11.4 of the PPSCoP, which applies the same 28-day standard to complaints;
• And the eight-week maximum response time reflected in guidance issued by the Financial Ombudsman Service, Ombudsman Services, and general consumer redress frameworks, including the British Standard for complaints handling (BS ISO 10002). These standards collectively establish 28 days as the normal expectation for responding to appeals or complaints and 56 days (8 weeks) as the upper limit before the matter may be escalated.
This procedural failure will also be noted in any complaint escalated to the Information Commissioner’s Office and the British Parking Association.
No inference is to be drawn from my clicking of buttons you oblige complainants to click when submitting complaints.
Yours sincerely,
[***]
17 April 2025
Subject: Supplementary to Existing Complaint – Failure to Respond to Appeal
Dear ParkingEye Privacy Team,
This is a supplementary item to my existing complaint concerning the misuse of my personal data and the unlawful disclosure of appeal content to the DVLA.
I now additionally note that more than 56 days have passed since I submitted my appeal on 19 February 2025, and ParkingEye has not provided a substantive response. The only correspondence received was a demand for the driver’s identity on 5 March, which ignored the actual content of the appeal and failed to address any of the grounds I raised.
This delay breaches:• Clause 8.4 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which requires a written response to an appeal within 28 days;
• Clause 11.4 of the PPSCoP, which applies the same 28-day standard to complaints;
• And the eight-week maximum response time reflected in guidance issued by the Financial Ombudsman Service, Ombudsman Services, and general consumer redress frameworks, including the British Standard for complaints handling (BS ISO 10002). These standards collectively establish 28 days as the normal expectation for responding to appeals or complaints and 56 days (8 weeks) as the upper limit before the matter may be escalated.
This procedural failure will also be noted in any complaint escalated to the Information Commissioner’s Office and the British Parking Association.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Date]
Dear ParkingEye Privacy Team,
Further to my email of earlier today, I must make clear that your reply does not resolve my complaint, which concerns your decision to disclose the content of my appeal to the DVLA, not whether you were entitled to respond to their inquiry generally.
You have not explained:
• What lawful basis under Article 6 of UK GDPR you relied on to disclose narrative content from my appeal;
• Why that disclosure was necessary or proportionate for the DVLA’s oversight role under the KADOE agreement;
• How the DVLA’s request for general information (e.g., whether an appeal was made) justified quoting or paraphrasing statements that I made in confidence during an appeal process.
The DVLA is not a party to the dispute and has no adjudicative function. While they may audit process compliance under the KADOE agreement, that does not relieve you of your duties as data controller to comply with the principles of purpose limitation and data minimisation under Articles 5(1)(b) and (c) of the UK GDPR.
Unless you can provide a lawful basis and justification for disclosing that specific information, I will escalate it to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
Please treat this as a continuation of my formal complaint and provide a full response within 14 days.
Yours sincerely,
[***]
Subject: Re: Unlawful Disclosure of Personal Data to DVLA – Response Inadequate
Dear ParkingEye Privacy Team,
Thank you for your response.
I must make clear that your reply does not resolve my complaint, which concerns your decision to disclose the content of my appeal to the DVLA, not whether you were entitled to respond to their inquiry generally.
You have not explained:• What lawful basis under Article 6 of UK GDPR you relied on to disclose narrative content from my appeal;
• Why that disclosure was necessary or proportionate for the DVLA’s oversight role under the KADOE agreement;
• How the DVLA’s request for general information (e.g., whether an appeal was made) justified quoting or paraphrasing statements that I made in confidence during an appeal process.
The DVLA is not a party to the dispute and has no adjudicative function. While they may audit process compliance under the KADOE agreement, that does not relieve you of your duties as data controller to comply with the principles of purpose limitation and data minimisation under Articles 5(1)(b) and (c) of the UK GDPR.
Unless you can provide a lawful basis and justification for disclosing that specific information, I will consider this matter unresolved and reserve the right to refer it to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
Please treat this as a continuation of my formal complaint and provide a full response within 14 days.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
Dear [***],
Thank you for your correspondence.
To comply with DVLA and our KADOE agreement the DVLA are able conduct audits of our practices and processes, to ensure that we are conducting our business in a compliant manner. Failure to comply with these obligations would result in us not being able to lawfully operate.
The DVLA requested information from us regarding the Parking Charge as you submitted a complaint to the DVLA, and as such, to remain compliant we provided the DVLA with the information they requested.
Please be advised that your full Subject Access Request has been received and we can confirm that this will be issued within the applicable timeframe as per our GDPR obligations.
For further information about your rights as a data subject, plus information about the categories of data we process, data transfers, the legal basis for our processing, and the purposes of processing, please visit: https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/privacy-policy/
Yours sincerely,
Parkingeye Privacy Team
Dear ParkingEye Privacy Team,
Is this a formal response to my privacy complaint? Please let me know, because if it is I shall escalate this matter to the ICO. To say that someone requested information from you is no defence against a claim of breaching a subject's privacy rights by sending it. If you do not acknowledge this request, I am sure the ICO will be able to assist.
Yours sincerely,
[***]
Subject: Supplementary Information -- Step Two Complaint [Ref: [***] ]
Dear DVLA Complaints Team,
Further to my Step Two complaint submitted on 9 April, reference [***], I am writing to provide supplementary information regarding a potential data protection concern that has arisen from your Step One response.
Your previous correspondence stated:
“ParkingEye have advised that they received an appeal stating that you would not identify the driver of the vehicle at the time.”
This indicates that ParkingEye disclosed the content of my private appeal to the DVLA. The DVLA is not a party to the dispute and has no adjudicative role in the appeal. This disclosure occurred without my knowledge or consent and was not necessary for the DVLA to assess whether ParkingEye had complied with its KADOE obligations.
This disclosure appears to contravene the data minimisation and purpose limitation principles under UK GDPR Article 5(1)(b) and (c). It also raises questions under the transparency and fairness requirements of Articles 12 to 14. I believe this disclosure constitutes a further misuse of my personal data, beyond the original misuse that formed the basis of my Step Two complaint.
Please ensure this concern is added to the ongoing investigation. I realise the DVLA is not responsible for parties that send information to it in breach of privacy rights, but nonetheless I am bringing this matter to your attention, because it is further evidence as to Parking Eye's contempt for the law. I have written to Parking Eye's data protection officer and in the event of an unsatisfactory response, or no response, I shall escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
Yours sincerely,
[***]
Registered keeper of vehicle [***]
12 April 2025
Dear Parking Eye Privacy Team,
I have been informed as follows in an email dated 9 April 2025 from a Data Assurance Compliance Officer at the DVLA:
"ParkingEye have advised that they received an appeal stating that you would not identify the driver of the vehicle at the time."
This amounts to ParkingEye disclosing to a third party, namely the DVLA, part of the content of my private appeal, despite the DVLA not being a party to the dispute. This disclosure was made without my knowledge or consent and was without good cause. It contravenes the principles of data minimisation and purpose limitation under UK GDPR Article 5(1)(b) and (c), and in the event that I do not receive your apology for this clear breach I reserve the right to raise this matter separately with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
I also request full copies of all correspondence relating in any way to PCN [***] that you have had with the DVLA or any other party.
Once again I am clicking the button on your submission form saying "I confirm that I have read and accept the privacy policy and consent to my data being processed and shared, as outlined in the policy, for the purpose of reviewing and responding to my enquiry", but the only reason I am clicking it is because you have chosen to configure your software so as not to accept complaints from people who don't. My clicking of the button should not be interpreted as having an significance, and I do not confirm that I have read any policy.
Yours sincerely,
[***]
Subject: Supplementary Information – Step Two Complaint [Insert DVLA Reference Number]
Dear DVLA Complaints Team,
Further to my Step Two complaint submitted on [insert date], reference [insert reference number if known], I am writing to provide supplementary information regarding a potential data protection concern that has arisen from your Step One response.
Your previous correspondence stated:“ParkingEye have advised that they received an appeal stating that you would not identify the driver of the vehicle at the time.”
This indicates that ParkingEye disclosed the content of my private appeal to the DVLA. The DVLA is not a party to the dispute and has no adjudicative role in the appeal. This disclosure occurred without my knowledge or consent and was not necessary for the DVLA to assess whether ParkingEye had complied with its KADOE obligations.
This action appears to contravene the data minimisation and purpose limitation principles under UK GDPR Article 5(1)(b) and (c). It also raises questions under the transparency and fairness requirements of Articles 12 to 14. I believe this disclosure constitutes a further misuse of my personal data, beyond the original misuse that formed the basis of my Step Two complaint.
Please ensure this concern is added to the ongoing investigation. I reserve the right to escalate this matter separately to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) depending on the outcome.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your address or reference details, if required]
[Date]
There is a credible argument that ParkingEye may have breached data protection principles by disclosing the content of your appeal to the DVLA without a lawful basis.
While the DVLA is the data controller for the keeper data it provides under the KADOE contract, it is not a party to the dispute between you and the private parking operator, nor is it an adjudicator or regulator of dispute content. Disclosing information from your appeal to the DVLA probably constitutes unlawful further processing under UK GDPR, particularly if the content of your message was not necessary or proportionate to the DVLA’s inquiry.
Key issues to consider:
there is a credible argument that ParkingEye may have breached data protection principles by disclosing the content of your appeal to the DVLA without a lawful basis.
While the DVLA is the data controller for the keeper data it provides under the KADOE contract, it is not a party to the dispute between you and the private parking operator, nor is it an adjudicator or regulator of dispute content. Disclosing information from your appeal to the DVLA may constitute unlawful further processing under UK GDPR, particularly if the content of your message was not necessary or proportionate to the DVLA’s inquiry.
Key issues to consider:
1. Purpose Limitation (UK GDPR Article 5(1)(b))
Data collected from you for the purposes of handling a parking appeal must not be repurposed arbitrarily. The DVLA’s investigation is into the lawful use of keeper data, not the substance of any appeal. Disclosing your appeal content risks breaching this principle unless the disclosure was strictly necessary and justified.
2. Data Minimisation (Article 5(1)(c))
Even if ParkingEye considered it appropriate to respond to a DVLA inquiry, they should have disclosed only what was necessary. Quoting or paraphrasing your appeal content goes beyond verifying that an appeal was received.
3. Confidentiality and Fairness
You were not told that appeal content might be shared with third parties outside the appeal process. This kind of disclosure, particularly to a non-judicial body, may also infringe your Article 8 ECHR privacy rights and breach the transparency obligations under Articles 12–14 of the UK GDPR.
4. Lack of Legal Basis
There’s no clear legal basis (Article 6(1)) under the UK GDPR for disclosing your statements to the DVLA unless:
You consented (which you didn’t), or
It was necessary for legal obligations, contracts, or legitimate interests, none of which obviously apply here.
Data collected from you for the purposes of handling a parking appeal must not be repurposed arbitrarily. The DVLA’s investigation is into the lawful use of keeper data, not the substance of any appeal. Disclosing your appeal content risks breaching this principle unless the disclosure was strictly necessary and justified.
2. Data Minimisation (Article 5(1)(c))
Even if ParkingEye considered it appropriate to respond to a DVLA inquiry, they should have disclosed only what was necessary. Quoting or paraphrasing your appeal content goes beyond verifying that an appeal was received.
3. Confidentiality and Fairness
You were not told that appeal content might be shared with third parties outside the appeal process. This kind of disclosure, particularly to a non-judicial body, may also infringe your Article 8 ECHR privacy rights and breach the transparency obligations under Articles 12–14 of the UK GDPR.
4. Lack of Legal Basis
There’s no clear legal basis (Article 6(1)) under the UK GDPR for disclosing your statements to the DVLA unless:• You consented (which you didn’t), or
• It was necessary for legal obligations, contracts, or legitimate interests, none of which obviously apply here.
If you've not sent the stage two complaint yet, I suggest you add the following paragraph:QuoteAdditionally, I must raise a data protection concern regarding ParkingEye’s response to your internal inquiry. Your Step One reply states that “ParkingEye have advised that they received an appeal stating that you would not identify the driver of the vehicle at the time.” This amounts to ParkingEye disclosing the content of my private appeal to a third party (the DVLA), despite the DVLA not being a party to the dispute. This disclosure was made without my knowledge or consent and was not necessary for the DVLA to determine whether there had been a breach of the KADOE contract. Such a disclosure likely contravenes the principles of data minimisation and purpose limitation under UK GDPR Article 5(1)(b) and (c), and I reserve the right to raise this matter separately with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if necessary.
Did you?
Additionally, I must raise a data protection concern regarding ParkingEye’s response to your internal inquiry. Your Step One reply states that “ParkingEye have advised that they received an appeal stating that you would not identify the driver of the vehicle at the time.” This amounts to ParkingEye disclosing the content of my private appeal to a third party (the DVLA), despite the DVLA not being a party to the dispute. This disclosure was made without my knowledge or consent and was not necessary for the DVLA to determine whether there had been a breach of the KADOE contract. Such a disclosure likely contravenes the principles of data minimisation and purpose limitation under UK GDPR Article 5(1)(b) and (c), and I reserve the right to raise this matter separately with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if necessary.
"ParkingEye have advised that they received an appeal stating that you would not identify the driver of the vehicle at the time"
Ref: Complaint [***]
Car reg. no. [***]
Dear DVLA Complaints Team,
DVLA Complaint Step Two -- ParkingEye Misuse of Keeper Data / Breach of KADOE and PPSCoP
I am writing to escalate my complaint to Step Two of the DVLA's formal complaints procedure, as your Step One response issued on 9 April 2025 failed to address the core issue raised in my complaint dated 29 March 2025.
This complaint is not about whether ParkingEye had reasonable cause to access my data at the time of the KADOE request. My complaint clearly states that the breach relates to the subsequent misuse of my personal data, in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and ParkingEye’s KADOE contract.
1. PoFA Does Not Apply to Keepers Domiciled in Scotland
Your Step One response inaccurately claimed:
“PoFA is based on the laws of the location where the Parking Charge Notice was issued, which in this case is England, where PoFA applies. Therefore, ParkingEye can utilise PoFA in this situation.”
This is incorrect. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4, only permits keeper liability where the parking event occurred on relevant land in England or Wales and where the registered keeper is also domiciled in England or Wales. It does not confer jurisdiction over keepers residing in Scotland, and any attempt to assert keeper liability under PoFA against a keeper resident in Scotland is legally defective.
ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper and subsequent correspondence contained false and misleading statements asserting PoFA liability against a Scottish resident. This is in breach of Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP, which prohibits operators from implying PoFA liability where it does not apply. Once ParkingEye became aware from the DVLA data that I reside in Scotland, they had an obligation to cease relying on PoFA.
2. Misuse of Data and Breach of KADOE Contract
The DVLA is the data controller for keeper data released under KADOE. Your own framework confirms that data must be used in accordance with the applicable Code of Practice. Where a KADOE recipient issues documentation in breach of the PPSCoP, and continues to misuse the data contrary to the purpose for which it was released, this becomes unlawful processing under UK GDPR and DPA 2018.
ParkingEye’s breach is not minor or technical. It constitutes:
* A breach of Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP;
* A breach of their KADOE contract;
* Misleading processing of my personal data with no legal basis;
* A potential breach of Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTR) 2008.
The DVLA has a statutory responsibility to investigate and sanction such misuse, including through suspension or termination of KADOE access where warranted.
3. Incorrect Assertion of Liability
Your Step One response stated:
“As the registered keeper of the vehicle, you are responsible for the PCN and the PCN remains outstanding.”
This is an entirely inappropriate and inaccurate assertion. Whether I am legally liable is a matter for the courts. It is not within the remit of the DVLA to declare legal liability for a private contractual claim.
I request a proper investigation into the actual issues raised, namely:
* ParkingEye’s breach of the PPSCoP;
* Their continued use of PoFA language in communications to a keeper registered and resident in Scotland;
* The unlawful use of DVLA data in light of these breaches;
* What enforcement action the DVLA will take against ParkingEye under the KADOE framework.
Please confirm this complaint is now under Step Two of the formal DVLA complaints process and provide a reference.
Yours sincerely,
[***]
9 April 2025
Subject: DVLA Complaint Step Two – ParkingEye Misuse of Keeper Data / Breach of KADOE and PPSCoP
Dear DVLA Complaints Team,
I am writing to escalate my complaint to Step Two of the DVLA's formal complaints procedure, as your Step One response failed to address the core issue raised in my original complaint dated 29 March 2025.
This complaint is not about whether ParkingEye had reasonable cause to access my data at the time of the KADOE request. My complaint clearly states that the breach relates to the subsequent misuse of my personal data, in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and ParkingEye’s KADOE contract.
1. PoFA Does Not Apply to Keepers Domiciled in Scotland
Your Step One response inaccurately claimed:“PoFA is based on the laws of the location where the Parking Charge Notice was issued, which in this case is England, where PoFA applies. Therefore, ParkingEye can utilise PoFA in this situation.”
This is incorrect. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4, only permits keeper liability where the parking event occurred on relevant land in England or Wales, and where the registered keeper is domiciled in England or Wales. It does not confer jurisdiction over Scottish residents, and any attempt to assert keeper liability under PoFA against a Scottish keeper is legally defective.
ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper and subsequent correspondence contained false and misleading statements asserting PoFA liability against a Scottish resident. This is in breach of Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP, which prohibits operators from implying PoFA liability where it does not apply. Once ParkingEye became aware from the DVLA data that I reside in Scotland, they had an obligation to cease relying on PoFA.
2. Misuse of Data and Breach of KADOE Contract
The DVLA is the data controller for keeper data released under KADOE. Your own framework confirms that data must be used in accordance with the applicable Code of Practice. Where a KADOE recipient issues documentation in breach of the PPSCoP, and continues to misuse the data contrary to the purpose for which it was released, this becomes unlawful processing under UK GDPR and DPA 2018.
ParkingEye’s breach is not minor or technical. It constitutes:• A breach of Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP;
• A breach of their KADOE contract;
• Misleading processing of my personal data with no legal basis;
• A potential breach of Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTR) 2008.
The DVLA has a statutory responsibility to investigate and sanction such misuse, including through suspension or termination of KADOE access where warranted.
3. Incorrect Assertion of Liability
Your Step One response stated:“As the registered keeper of the vehicle, you are responsible for the PCN and the PCN remains outstanding.”
This is an entirely inappropriate and inaccurate assertion. Whether I am legally liable is a matter for the courts. It is not within the remit of the DVLA to declare legal liability for a private contractual claim.
I request a proper investigation into the actual issues raised, namely:• ParkingEye’s breach of the PPSCoP;
• Their continued use of PoFA language in communications to a Scottish keeper;
• The unlawful use of DVLA data in light of these breaches;
• What enforcement action the DVLA will take against ParkingEye under the KADOE framework.
Please confirm this complaint is now under Step Two of the formal DVLA complaints process and provide a reference.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Date]
Dear [***]
Thank you for your correspondence of 29th March about the release of information
from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s (DVLA) vehicle register. I have been
asked to formally review your case at Step 1 of our complaints procedure.
The DVLA takes the protection and security of its data very seriously and has
procedures in place to ensure data is disclosed only where it is lawful and fair to do
so and where the provisions of the Data Protection Law are met. The Agency must
strike a balance between ensuring the privacy of motorists is respected while
enabling those who may have suffered loss or damage to seek redress.
Drivers choosing to park a vehicle on private land do so subject to the terms and
conditions set out on signage in the car park. The need to contact individuals who
may not have complied with these conditions is, in most circumstances, considered
to be a reasonable cause. Data is provided by the DVLA to enable landowners or
their agents to pursue their legal rights and to address disputes. I hope you can
appreciate that if this were not the case, motorists would be able to park with
disregard for the conditions applying with little prospect of being held accountable.
I have investigated the matter with ParkingEye who made the request to the DVLA
for the registered keeper details for Vehicle Registration Number [***]. I have
had sight of their supporting evidence to show that they had reasonable cause to
make their request. The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued as the signage at
the site states tariffs applies after 2 hours and the vehicle remained in the car park
for 2 hours and 34 minutes. ParkingEye have advised that they received an appeal
stating that you would not identify the driver of the vehicle at the time, and they have
responded to you on 5th March. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, you are
responsible for the PCN and the PCN remains outstanding.
PoFA is based on the laws of the location where the Parking Charge Notice was
issued, which in this case is England, where PoFA applies. Therefore, ParkingEye
can utilise PoFA in this situation.
To help ensure motorists are treated fairly when any private parking charge is
pursued the DVLA discloses vehicle keeper information only to companies that are
members of an appropriate Accredited Trade Association (ATA). The purpose of
requiring a company to be a member of an ATA is to ensure that those who request
DVLA information are legitimate companies that operate within a code of practice
that promotes fair treatment of the motorist and ensures that there is a clear set of
standards for operators.
The company in question, ParkingEye, are a member of the British Parking
Association (BPA) which is an Accredited Trade Association for the parking industry.
The BPA’s code of practice is published on its website at
http://www.britishparking.co.uk under the heading “Approved Operators Scheme”. If
a member of this scheme does not comply with the code of practice, it may be
suspended or expelled, during which time no data will be provided to it by the
DVLA. If you feel that any of the practices used by the company do not comply with
the BPA’s code of practice, you may wish to contact the BPA via email at
https://portal.britishparking.co.uk/compliance/LogComplaint or by post at Chelsea
House, 8-14 The Broadway, Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH16 3AH.
We have fully considered all the information available. If you feel that your complaint
has not been resolved, you can request escalation of your complaint to Step 2 of the
complaints process. Further options about our complaint procedure can be found
online at www.gov.uk/dvla/complaints.
Yours sincerely
[***]
Data Customer Auditor
Data Assurance Team/Information & Assurance Group
Complaint Against ParkingEye Ltd – Breach of PPSCoP and Improper Handling of Appeal and Complaint
Dear BPA Compliance Team,
Re: ParkingEye Ltd – Breach of PPSCoP Sections 8.4.1, 11.3 and Improper Use of Data in Scotland
I write to raise a formal complaint regarding the conduct of ParkingEye Ltd, an Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) member, in connection with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to me as the registered keeper of a vehicle. I reside in Scotland and have no contractual relationship with ParkingEye.
On 19 February 2025, I submitted an appeal to ParkingEye via their online portal. The appeal raised fundamental concerns, including that:
• I am the keeper of the vehicle and reside in Scotland;
• The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4, does not apply in Scotland;
• ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) was in breach of PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d), as it contained a PoFA warning despite being issued to a Scottish address;
• I denied liability and expressly stated that there would be no identification of the driver.
Despite the clear and concise nature of the appeal, ParkingEye failed to issue a substantive response within the 28-day period mandated in section 8.4.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (Version 1.1, Feb 2025).
On 6 March 2025, I submitted a formal complaint through their web portal to raise this non-compliance. I received no substantive response within 28 days.
Instead, after I chased the matter, ParkingEye issued an email refusing to process my complaint unless I explicitly agreed to their Privacy Policy and Complaints Policy. Their justification was that, although I clicked mandatory checkboxes to allow submission, I included a written statement making clear I did not agree to those policies and clicked only to bypass the software restriction.
ParkingEye's refusal to process my complaint on this basis is indefensible. It is a clear attempt to obstruct a formal complaint by conflating acknowledgment with consent, despite their obligations as a data controller under UK GDPR and as a BPA member under the PPSCoP.
Furthermore, their insistence that they will delete my complaint correspondence due to my objection to their policies raises serious data governance concerns and undermines the regulatory complaints process.
Breaches Identified:
• PPSCoP 8.1.1(d) – Issuing an NtK with a PoFA warning to a keeper in Scotland, where PoFA does not apply.
• PPSCoP 8.4.1 – Failure to respond to a keeper appeal within 28 days.
• PPSCoP 11.3 – Failure to acknowledge and respond to a formal complaint within 14 and 28 days respectively.
• Improper conditional processing – Refusing to handle complaints unless individuals agree to policies which they may lawfully contest or object to.
Requested action:
I request that the BPA:
• Investigate this matter as a serious breach of the PPSCoP;
• Require ParkingEye to respond to the original appeal and formal complaint;
• Review the legality and fairness of ParkingEye’s practice of rejecting complaints unless “consent” is provided under duress;
• Remind ParkingEye of their obligations under the PPSCoP and the principles of the UK GDPR.
Please confirm receipt of this complaint and advise me of the steps that will now be taken.
Yours faithfully,
***
Address: ***
Keeper of Vehicle Registration ***
Subject: Formal Complaint Against ParkingEye Ltd – Breach of PPSCoP and Improper Handling of Appeal and Complaint
To: aos@britishparking.co.uk
Date: [Insert date]
Dear BPA Compliance Team,
Re: ParkingEye Ltd – Breach of PPSCoP Sections 8.4.1, 11.3 and Improper Use of Data in Scotland
I write to raise a formal complaint regarding the conduct of ParkingEye Ltd, an Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) member, in connection with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to me as the registered keeper of a vehicle. I reside in Scotland and have no contractual relationship with ParkingEye.
On 19 February 2025, I submitted an appeal to ParkingEye via their online portal. The appeal raised fundamental concerns, including that:• I am the keeper of the vehicle and reside in Scotland;
• The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4, does not apply in Scotland;
• ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) was in breach of PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d), as it contained a PoFA warning despite being issued to a Scottish address;
• I denied any liability and expressly stated there would be no identification of the driver.
Despite the clear and concise nature of the appeal, ParkingEye failed to issue any response within the mandatory 28-day period set out in section 8.4.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (Version 1.1, February 2025).
On 6 March 2025, I submitted a formal complaint through their web portal to raise this non-compliance. I received no acknowledgment within 14 days, in breach of section 11.3.1, and no substantive response within 28 days.
Instead, after I chased the matter, ParkingEye issued an email refusing to process my complaint unless I explicitly agreed to their Privacy Policy and Complaints Policy. Their justification was that, although I clicked mandatory checkboxes to allow submission, I included a written statement making clear I did not agree to those policies and clicked only to bypass the software restriction.
ParkingEye's refusal to process my complaint on this basis is indefensible. It is a clear attempt to obstruct a formal complaint by conflating acknowledgment with consent, despite their obligations as a data controller under UK GDPR and as a BPA member under the PPSCoP.
Furthermore, their insistence that they will delete my complaint correspondence due to my objection to their policies raises serious data governance concerns and undermines the regulatory complaints process.
Breaches Identified:• PPSCoP 8.1.1(d) – Issuing an NtK with a PoFA warning to a keeper in Scotland, where PoFA does not apply.
• PPSCoP 8.4.1 – Failure to respond to a keeper appeal within 28 days.
• PPSCoP 11.3 – Failure to acknowledge and respond to a formal complaint within 14 and 28 days respectively.
• Improper conditional processing – Refusing to handle complaints unless individuals agree to policies which they may lawfully contest or object to.
Requested action:
I request that the BPA:• Investigate this matter as a serious breach of the PPSCoP;
• Require ParkingEye to respond to the original appeal and formal complaint;
• Review the legality and fairness of ParkingEye’s practice of rejecting complaints unless “consent” is provided under duress;
• Remind ParkingEye of their obligations under the PPSCoP and the principles of the UK GDPR.
Please confirm receipt of this complaint and advise me of the steps that will now be taken.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email Address]
Keeper of Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
PCN Reference: [Insert PCN number, if available]
You send the following response to ParkingEye:QuoteSubject: Re: Refusal to Process Complaint – Misuse of Privacy Policy as Obstruction
Dear ParkingEye Complaints Team,
Thank you for your response. However, your refusal to process my complaint on the grounds that I did not “agree” to your Privacy Policy or Complaints Policy is wholly misconceived.
I explicitly stated that I clicked the consent boxes under protest, solely to enable submission of my complaint. That act does not equate to agreement, particularly where you have configured your system to reject complaints unless those boxes are ticked, thereby rendering consent not freely given and invalid under UK GDPR.
Your Privacy Policy does not and cannot override statutory obligations under:1. The UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
2. The Data Protection Act 2018
3. The BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), including sections 8.4.1 and 11.3
4. Your contractual obligations under your DVLA KADOE agreement
You issued a Notice to Keeper to a Scottish address containing a PoFA warning that has no legal application. You then failed to respond to a valid appeal submitted on 19 February 2025 and ignored my formal complaint of 7 March 2025. When a reminder was sent, your only response was to inform me that you would delete my complaint — an extraordinary stance in breach of your obligations as a BPA member and data controller.
I now give notice that unless you confirm within 5 working days that:1. My appeal has been processed and a full response issued;
2. My formal complaint has been logged and will be handled in accordance with section 11.3 of the PPSCoP; and
3. My personal data will not be deleted pending resolution of the matter
I will escalate the matter to:• The DVLA Data Sharing Team, citing unlawful use of my keeper data and breach of your KADOE contract
• The British Parking Association (BPA), citing non-compliance with the PPSCoP and improper obstruction of the complaints process
• The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), citing refusal to comply with Articles 5 and 6 of the UK GDPR and unjustified data deletion
No further deflection will be accepted. If you persist in refusing to process my complaint, I will ask the relevant authorities to determine the matter.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Keeper of vehicle registration: [XXX]
I am assuming you have already sent the DVLA complaint. Do you think you are capable of putting together a formal complaint to the BPA yourself?
Subject: Re: Refusal to Process Complaint – Misuse of Privacy Policy as Obstruction
Dear ParkingEye Complaints Team,
Thank you for your response. However, your refusal to process my complaint on the grounds that I did not “agree” to your Privacy Policy or Complaints Policy is wholly misconceived.
I explicitly stated that I clicked the consent boxes under protest, solely to enable submission of my complaint. That act does not equate to agreement, particularly where you have configured your system to reject complaints unless those boxes are ticked, thereby rendering consent not freely given and invalid under UK GDPR.
Your Privacy Policy does not and cannot override statutory obligations under:1. The UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
2. The Data Protection Act 2018
3. The BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), including sections 8.4.1 and 11.3
4. Your contractual obligations under your DVLA KADOE agreement
You issued a Notice to Keeper to a Scottish address containing a PoFA warning that has no legal application. You then failed to respond to a valid appeal submitted on 19 February 2025 and ignored my formal complaint of 7 March 2025. When a reminder was sent, your only response was to inform me that you would delete my complaint — an extraordinary stance in breach of your obligations as a BPA member and data controller.
I now give notice that unless you confirm within 5 working days that:1. My appeal has been processed and a full response issued;
2. My formal complaint has been logged and will be handled in accordance with section 11.3 of the PPSCoP; and
3. My personal data will not be deleted pending resolution of the matter
I will escalate the matter to:• The DVLA Data Sharing Team, citing unlawful use of my keeper data and breach of your KADOE contract
• The British Parking Association (BPA), citing non-compliance with the PPSCoP and improper obstruction of the complaints process
• The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), citing refusal to comply with Articles 5 and 6 of the UK GDPR and unjustified data deletion
No further deflection will be accepted. If you persist in refusing to process my complaint, I will ask the relevant authorities to determine the matter.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Keeper of vehicle registration: [XXX]
Dear [***],
We note from your correspondence that you do not agree to the Complaints Policy or our Privacy Policy. As such, we will be unable to process your complaint. We can confirm that your correspondence will be deleted following this response being issued. If you would like Parkingeye to process your complaint, you must confirm your agreement to our Complaints Policy and Privacy Policy. This is a requirement to ensure that we comply with our obligations under UK GDPR.
Kind regards,
Parkingeye Complaints Team
"Last, I have clicked on your two buttons saying "I have read the complaints policy and understand that any appeals/dissatisfaction relating to a Parking Charge will not be dealt with via this process" and "I have read the Privacy Policy relating to "special category" personal data and I understand the types of information that would be considered sensitive. Should I choose to explicitly disclose information within my complaint that would be considered sensitive, either within the complaint detail or within documents I attach, then I consent to the Parkingeye Complaints Team processing this information as outlined in the Privacy Policy." The only reason I clicked was because you have configured your software not to accept complaints if a complainant does not click. Please note that I do not accept what is stated here. You are not a public body and I do not have any kind of contract with you or obligation to you, nor do I grant you any rights."
I am submitting a formal complaint against PARKINGEYE, a BPA 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.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP
Operator name: PARKINGEYE
Date of PCN issue: 5 FEBRUARY 2025
Vehicle registration: [***]
I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my personal data by PARKINGEYE, 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, PARKINGEYE has breached the PPSCoP in the following ways:
ParkingEye has breached the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and its KADOE contract by issuing a Notice to Keeper (NtK) to a keeper resident in Scotland containing a false statement that the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA does not apply in Scotland, and therefore keeper liability cannot be enforced.
Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP prohibits parking operators from including PoFA warnings on NtKs sent to addresses in Scotland. ParkingEye’s conduct is misleading, unlawful, and in breach of consumer protection law. They have misused DVLA data by pursuing enforcement action based on legislation that does not apply, and this constitutes a breach of the KADOE contract, which requires compliance with the PPSCoP and the lawful use of keeper data.
These is not a minor or technical breach. This shows 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:
• Confirming that a breach has occurred
• Taking enforcement action against the operator
• Suspending or terminating their KADOE access if warranted
This is the supporting material I am submitting. Please confirm receipt and provide a reference for this complaint.
Name: [***]
Date: 29 MARCH 2025
QuoteParkingEye has breached the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and its KADOE contract by issuing a Notice to Keeper (NtK) to a Scottish keeper containing a false statement that the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA does not apply in Scotland, and therefore keeper liability cannot be enforced.
Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP prohibits parking operators from including PoFA warnings on NtKs sent to addresses in Scotland. ParkingEye’s conduct is misleading, unlawful, and in breach of consumer protection law. They have misused DVLA data by pursuing enforcement action based on legislation that does not apply, and this constitutes a breach of the KADOE contract, which requires compliance with the PPSCoP and the lawful use of keeper data.
Formal Notification: Matter Now Being Escalated to DVLA and BPA
Dear ParkingEye Complaints Team,
Reference: Parking Charge Notice - [***]
This is formal notification that, due to your failure to provide a final response to myappeal submitted on 19 February 2025, and your non-reply to my complaint submitted on 6 March 2025, the matter is now being escalated.
You are in breach of BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), specifically:
• Section 8.4.1 – requiring a full response to appeals within 28 days.
In view of this breach, I am now filing:
• A formal complaint with the DVLA Data Sharing Team, reporting your unlawful use of my keeper data and breach of your KADOE contract by issuing a Notice to Keeper in Scotland containing a PoFA warning; and
• A formal complaint with the British Parking Association (BPA), detailing your non-compliant conduct and failure to adhere to the PPSCoP and membership obligations.
This notification is for your records. No further correspondence is required unless it is a full and final response addressing all the points raised in my complaint dated 6 March 2025.
Note that as before I have ticked the boxes only because you have configured your software not to accept communications from a person who does not tick them. My ticks do not indicate acceptance of what you have written by the boxes.
Yours sincerely,
[***]
Registered Keeper
ParkingEye has breached the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and its KADOE contract by issuing a Notice to Keeper (NtK) to a Scottish keeper containing a false statement that the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA does not apply in Scotland, and therefore keeper liability cannot be enforced.
Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP prohibits parking operators from including PoFA warnings on NtKs sent to addresses in Scotland. ParkingEye’s conduct is misleading, unlawful, and in breach of consumer protection law. They have misused DVLA data by pursuing enforcement action based on legislation that does not apply, and this constitutes a breach of the KADOE contract, which requires compliance with the PPSCoP and the lawful use of keeper data.
SO, just edit the dates as necessary and send the message. Also, make the formal DVLA complaint.
"INSERT A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE BREACH(ES), e.g. failure to follow grace periods, misleading notices, refusal to engage with a complaint, pursuing a charge despite having evidence of disability or mitigation, etc.]"
Subject: Formal Notification: Matter Now Being Escalated to DVLA and BPA
Dear ParkingEye Complaints Team,
This is to formally notify you that, due to your failure to provide any final response to my appeal submitted on 19 February 2025, and your failure even to acknowledge my formal complaint submitted on 7 March 2025, the matter is now being escalated.
You are in breach of BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), specifically:• Section 8.4.1 – requiring a full response to appeals within 28 days; and
• Section 11.3 – requiring acknowledgement of complaints within 14 days and a full response within 28 days.
In view of these breaches, I am now filing:• A formal complaint with the DVLA Data Sharing Team, reporting your unlawful use of my keeper data and breach of your KADOE contract by issuing a Notice to Keeper in Scotland containing a PoFA warning; and
• A formal complaint with the British Parking Association (BPA), detailing your non-compliant conduct and failure to adhere to the PPSCoP and membership obligations.
This notification is for your records. No further correspondence is required unless it is a full and final response addressing all the points raised in my complaint dated 7 March 2025.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
Registered Keeper
[PCN Reference]
What method did you use to send the appeal? Their Webform or Royal Mail?I used their webform. They emailed me a dated acknowledgement. Since if they're reading this they must know who I am, I can say the date of it which was 19 February. Then I got an email from them on 5 March (which I reported here) saying my appeal had "been referred for further information" in which they said I "should" tell them the name and address of the driver. But they didn't say they expected to fail to meet their 28 day backstop. We're already on 38 days.
"Your deliberate misrepresentation of my statement is unacceptable. Furthermore, you have repeatedly demanded that I disclose the driver’s details, despite my clear refusal. This unwarranted pressure to disclose personal data may constitute harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997."to this:
"Your deliberate misrepresentation of my statement is unacceptable. Furthermore, you have repeatedly demanded that I disclose the driver’s details, despite my clear statement that there will be no such identification. This unwarranted pressure may constitute harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997."
"Last, I have clicked on your two buttons saying "I have read the complaints policy and understand that any appeals/dissatisfaction relating to a Parking Charge will not be dealt with via this process" and "I have read the Privacy Policy relating to "special category" personal data and I understand the types of information that would be considered sensitive. Should I choose to explicitly disclose information within my complaint that would be considered sensitive, either within the complaint detail or within documents I attach, then I consent to the Parkingeye Complaints Team processing this information as outlined in the Privacy Policy." The only reason I clicked was because you have configured your software not to accept complaints if a complainant does not click. Please note that I do not accept what is stated here. You are not a public body and I do not have any kind of contract with you or obligation to you, nor do I grant you any rights."
You can either post it to:
Parkingeye Limited
Complaints Department
40 Eaton Avenue
Buckshaw Village
Chorley
PR7 7NA
Make sure you get a free proof of posting certificate from any post office.
Or, you can use their online complaints form here:
https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/motorist/complaints/form/
A formal complaint forces ParkingEye to respond to the specific issues raised, creating a further paper trail of their failures. This also satisfies the BPA’s requirement to exhaust the operator’s complaints process before escalating to them.
Send them the following:QuoteSubject: Formal Complaint – Breach of PPSCoP and KADOE Contract
Dear ParkingEye Complaints Team,
This is a formal complaint regarding ParkingEye’s serious breaches of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and your obligations under the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract with the DVLA. These breaches involve misleading and unlawful conduct in the processing of my personal data.
This complaint is entirely separate from the appeal process and must be handled in accordance with your formal complaints procedure.
1. Unlawful Application of PoFA in Scotland
You have issued a Notice to Keeper (NtK) containing a PoFA warning, despite the fact that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) does not apply in Scotland.
You have doubled down on this misrepresentation in your appeal response by falsely asserting that:"You have already been notified that under section 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. If we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you, the registered keeper."
This is categorically false, misleading, and unlawful because PoFA cannot be used to hold keepers liable in Scotland. This constitutes a serious breach of consumer protection law and could be considered a form of fraudulent misrepresentation.
2. Breach of the PPSCoP – Section 8.1.1(d)
Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) expressly prohibits operators from issuing Notices to Keeper in Scotland that contain PoFA warnings. Your conduct is in direct contravention of this rule.
Your failure to comply with the PPSCoP constitutes a breach of your BPA membership requirements and will be the subject of a formal complaint to the BPA if your response to this complaint does not fully uphold it.
3. Breach of Your KADOE Contract with the DVLA
By issuing a non-compliant Notice to Keeper containing a PoFA warning, you have also breached your Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract with the DVLA.
Your KADOE contract strictly prohibits misleading statements or the processing of keeper data in a manner that is not fully compliant with the relevant Code of Practice. By issuing NtKs in Scotland that include PoFA warnings, you are processing my personal data unlawfully.
Regardless of your response to this complaint, I am reporting this serious breach to the DVLA’s Data Sharing Team.
4. Misrepresentation of My Appeal & Harassment
In your response to my appeal, you falsely stated:"You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the breach."
This is not true. My actual words were:"There will be no identification of the driver, and you are not permitted to hold me liable for the charge you allege was incurred by the driver, for the simple reason that PoFA does not apply here in Scotland."
Your deliberate misrepresentation of my statement is unacceptable. Furthermore, you have repeatedly demanded that I disclose the driver’s details, despite my clear refusal. This unwarranted pressure to disclose personal data may constitute harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
5. Required Actions
To resolve this complaint, I require the following:1. Immediate cancellation of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), as it has been pursued using an unlawful and misleading PoFA warning.
2. A formal admission of your breach of Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP and an explanation of how you will rectify this breach across all Notices issued in Scotland.
3. A formal admission of your breach of your KADOE contract with the DVLA and confirmation that you will cease issuing non-compliant NtKs in Scotland.
4. A commitment that ParkingEye will never again attempt to mislead Scottish keepers by referencing PoFA in any correspondence.
If your response does not fully uphold this complaint, I will escalate it as a formal complaint to the British Parking Association (BPA) in line with their procedures, after exhausting ParkingEye’s own complaints process as required under the PPSCoP.
Regardless of your response, a separate complaint is being submitted to the DVLA regarding your breach of the KADOE contract.
I expect a full response within 14 days.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
Registered Keeper
Subject: Formal Complaint – Breach of PPSCoP and KADOE Contract
Dear ParkingEye Complaints Team,
This is a formal complaint regarding ParkingEye’s serious breaches of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and your obligations under the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract with the DVLA. These breaches involve misleading and unlawful conduct in the processing of my personal data.
This complaint is entirely separate from the appeal process and must be handled in accordance with your formal complaints procedure.
1. Unlawful Application of PoFA in Scotland
You have issued a Notice to Keeper (NtK) containing a PoFA warning, despite the fact that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) does not apply in Scotland.
You have doubled down on this misrepresentation in your appeal response by falsely asserting that:"You have already been notified that under section 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. If we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you, the registered keeper."
This is categorically false, misleading, and unlawful because PoFA cannot be used to hold keepers liable in Scotland. This constitutes a serious breach of consumer protection law and could be considered a form of fraudulent misrepresentation.
2. Breach of the PPSCoP – Section 8.1.1(d)
Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) expressly prohibits operators from issuing Notices to Keeper in Scotland that contain PoFA warnings. Your conduct is in direct contravention of this rule.
Your failure to comply with the PPSCoP constitutes a breach of your BPA membership requirements and will be the subject of a formal complaint to the BPA if your response to this complaint does not fully uphold it.
3. Breach of Your KADOE Contract with the DVLA
By issuing a non-compliant Notice to Keeper containing a PoFA warning, you have also breached your Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract with the DVLA.
Your KADOE contract strictly prohibits misleading statements or the processing of keeper data in a manner that is not fully compliant with the relevant Code of Practice. By issuing NtKs in Scotland that include PoFA warnings, you are processing my personal data unlawfully.
Regardless of your response to this complaint, I am reporting this serious breach to the DVLA’s Data Sharing Team.
4. Misrepresentation of My Appeal & Harassment
In your response to my appeal, you falsely stated:"You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the breach."
This is not true. My actual words were:"There will be no identification of the driver, and you are not permitted to hold me liable for the charge you allege was incurred by the driver, for the simple reason that PoFA does not apply here in Scotland."
Your deliberate misrepresentation of my statement is unacceptable. Furthermore, you have repeatedly demanded that I disclose the driver’s details, despite my clear refusal. This unwarranted pressure to disclose personal data may constitute harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
5. Required Actions
To resolve this complaint, I require the following:1. Immediate cancellation of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), as it has been pursued using an unlawful and misleading PoFA warning.
2. A formal admission of your breach of Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP and an explanation of how you will rectify this breach across all Notices issued in Scotland.
3. A formal admission of your breach of your KADOE contract with the DVLA and confirmation that you will cease issuing non-compliant NtKs in Scotland.
4. A commitment that ParkingEye will never again attempt to mislead Scottish keepers by referencing PoFA in any correspondence.
If your response does not fully uphold this complaint, I will escalate it as a formal complaint to the British Parking Association (BPA) in line with their procedures, after exhausting ParkingEye’s own complaints process as required under the PPSCoP.
Regardless of your response, a separate complaint is being submitted to the DVLA regarding your breach of the KADOE contract.
I expect a full response within 14 days.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
Registered Keeper
"I confirm I have attached all supporting information available to me, and understand that I will be unable to provide any additional evidence at a later date, unless specifically requested by Parkingeye"
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I reside in Scotland. I deny any liability or contractual obligation to you or your client.
There will be no identification of the driver, and you are not permitted to hold me liable for the charge you allege was incurred by the driver, for the simple reason that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) - in particular, paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 - does not apply here in Scotland.
You are in flagrant breach of Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) in that you have issued a Notice to Keeper containing a PoFA warning when you know that PoFA does not apply in Scotland.
There are several other legal problems with your Notice, which I shall not mention here because the above is fully sufficient to show that ParkingEye have absolutely no hope of success at POPLA - so kindly save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN without delay.
I am ticking the box saying "I confirm I have attached all supporting information available to me, and understand that I will be unable to provide any additional evidence at a later date, unless specifically requested by Parkingeye", but the only reason I am ticking it is because you have configured your software not to accept appeals from appellants who do not tick it. I absolutely do not "confirm" as stated, and I reserve the right to submit whatever evidence I choose at a later time.
"There will be no admission as to who was driving". I don't like the word "admission" here. I would say there will be "no identification of the driver" or "no statement regarding the driver's identity".
What is the argument for appealing rather than doing nothing at this stage?A potentially quicker end to the matter. By appealing now you show that you're not an easy target, and when they realise they've no hope they may well give up. If you ignore it they'll probably pass the matter on to debt collectors - whilst they're powerless, up to 6 years of threatening letters can be a pain.
The Keeper should stop worrying. There is no Keeper liability in Scotland, for now.
While PoFA allows private parking companies in England and Wales to hold the registered keeper liable if the driver is not identified, this provision does not extend to Scotland.
The registered keeper in Scotland is not subject to PoFA keeper liability, even if the alleged contravention occurred in England.
Any claim would need to be pursued in England, as that is where the alleged contravention took place. However, for a registered keeper based in Scotland, the operator would have difficulty enforcing keeper liability unless they could establish jurisdiction in Scotland.
A claim against the keeper in a Scottish court would fail because PoFA does not apply there. In Scotland, private parking companies must pursue the driver directly. If the keeper does not disclose who was driving, there is no legal mechanism under PoFA for the operator to transfer liability to the keeper.
So, since PoFA does not apply in Scotland, a parking company cannot rely on it to hold a Scottish keeper liable for a charge incurred in England. The parking company must identify the driver to enforce the charge. If the keeper does not name the driver, they are not liable.
In other words, don’t tell ‘em your name Pike!
Easy one to deal with… 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 the registered keeper resides in Scotland, the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) do not apply, and you are unable to hold the keeper liable for the charge. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. ParkingEye has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
Furthermore, you have breached Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) by issuing a Notice to Keeper containing a PoFA warning when you know PoFA does not apply to a Scottish resident. Your notice falsely states that the keeper is liable, despite this being legally impossible.
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. ParkingEye have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Besides the appeal, there are several other things you should consider. Besides the fact that if ParkingEye reject the appeal, POPLA should uphold it because not only is the Keeper not liable, the PPSCoP has also been breached.
Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP states:"The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language states the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable."
ParkingEye obviously knows that PoFA does not apply to a Scottish resident, yet they have still included a PoFA warning in their NtK. This is a clear breach of the Code Of Practice.
POPLA has the authority to uphold an appeal on the basis that the PCN was issued incorrectly due to a breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). Since ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) falsely states that the keeper is liable under PoFA when they legally cannot be (PPSCoP Section 8.1.1(d)), this is strong grounds for POPLA to rule in favour of the keeper and order ParkingEye to cancel the charge.
This all leads to another issue. Once ParkingEye obtained the registered keeper's data from the DVLA and saw that the address was in Scotland, they should have immediately realised that PoFA does not apply and acted accordingly. Their failure to do so is a breach of the PPSCoP and potentially a misuse of personal data under UK GDPR.
By breaching the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), ParkingEye has also breached the DVLA’s Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract, and a formal complaint should be made to the DVLA.
The KADOE Contract Requires Operators to Adhere to the PPSCoP. Under the KADOE agreement, private parking operators must comply with the PPSCoP. ParkingEye has breached the PPSCoP by issuing a Notice to Keeper (NtK) containing a PoFA warning when PoFA does not apply to a Scottish keeper (PPSCoP Section 8.1.1(d)). This means they are in breach of their KADOE contract with the DVLA.
The DVLA provides keeper data on the condition that it is only used for a ‘reasonable cause’—such as enforcing unpaid parking charges in compliance with the applicable laws and Codes of Practice. Since PoFA cannot apply to a Scottish keeper, ParkingEye had no reasonable cause to issue an NtK implying keeper liability under PoFA. By knowingly issuing a non-compliant NtK, ParkingEye has used DVLA data improperly, which is a direct breach of their KADOE agreement.
If a parking company is found to have breached the KADOE agreement, the DVLA has the power to issue sanctions (such as warnings or suspensions), temporarily suspend their access to DVLA data and In serious cases, permanently revoke access, meaning they can no longer obtain keeper details for enforcement.
So, are you prepared to send a formal complaint to the DVLA? Happy to assist.
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 the registered keeper resides in Scotland, the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) do not apply, and you are unable to hold the keeper liable for the charge. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. ParkingEye has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
Furthermore, you have breached Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) by issuing a Notice to Keeper containing a PoFA warning when you know PoFA does not apply to a Scottish resident. Your notice falsely states that the keeper is liable, despite this being legally impossible.
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. ParkingEye have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
"(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver".