Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Chris_S on March 02, 2025, 10:54:02 pm

Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: Chris_S on April 13, 2025, 03:49:03 pm
@H C Andersen - I have posted the documentation in my posts on 2nd, 3rd and 30th March under this subject. Kind Regards, Chris
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: b789 on April 13, 2025, 11:40:58 am
The literal wording of PPSCoP 4.1 may refer to "drivers with a disability." There’s no ambiguity in the phrase as written—it specifically frames the requirement around disabled drivers, not disabled passengers. However, that does not absolve the operator from complying with the requirement to have the necessary signage visible to the driver whether disabled or not when using a disabled bay.

While the PPSCoP 4.1 wording does focus on "drivers with a disability," applying the Equality Act 2010 alongside it expands the operator’s obligations. The Equality Act places duties on service providers not to indirectly discriminate and to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people—not just drivers. That includes passengers, especially those with mobility impairments.

So, even if the Code's wording narrowly refers to drivers, a parking operator who designs signage and parking terms in a way that requires a driver to leave a vehicle to read hidden terms, when they have a disabled passenger who cannot be left alone, is still placing that disabled person at a disadvantage.

To argue the point that the appellant would only be regarded as the driver can be countered:

PPSCoP 4.1 refers specifically to “drivers with a disability.” But, where a driver is responsible for a disabled passenger, the Equality Act 2010 imposes an equal or greater obligation not to indirectly discriminate.

Therefore, signage must be readable without leaving the vehicle where a disabled person is present in the vehicle, regardless of whether it’s the driver or the passenger who is disabled.
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: H C Andersen on April 12, 2025, 10:16:05 pm
OP, let's try and engage with the prescribed procedure.

Post the full PCNs and responses pl. Is the keeper still able to appeal to the IAS? 

Second, you have admitted to being the driver whose passenger holds a BB. Therefore IMO you would be treated simply as the driver. The provision regarding accessible signs being for the benefit of disabled drivers, not passengers.

Your attempts at extra procedural cage rattling don't seem to be bearing fruit, therefore the keeper might consider engaging with mainstream procedures, assuming there's time.

Anyway, let's see complete docs pl.

Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: Chris_S on April 12, 2025, 09:05:35 pm
Thank you. This has now been logged in the DVLA complaints portal.
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: b789 on April 06, 2025, 08:39:47 pm
Never, mind, I see I already gave you the substance to put in the complaint. The DVLA’s response is typically disappointing, generic and fails to engage with the substance of the complaint—particularly the allegation of misuse of data after lawful acquisition, which is a crucial distinction under UK GDPR and the KADOE contract.

Respond with the following as a step 2 escalation:

Step 2 Complaint – Data Misuse by G24 Ltd

To: [DVLA Step 2 Complaint Contact – if submitting via email, use data.sharing@dvla.gov.uk or the complaints portal as directed]

Date: [Insert Date]
Reference: [Insert reference number provided in Step 1 response]

Subject: Step 2 Complaint – Misuse of DVLA Keeper Data by G24 Ltd (KADOE Breach)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to escalate my complaint to Step 2 of the DVLA complaints process. I appreciate the response received from Mrs Lisa Boucher dated 31 March 2025, but must respectfully state that it failed to address the substance of my complaint. I now request a further and more thorough review.

This complaint is not about whether G24 Ltd had reasonable cause to obtain my data at the outset. It concerns the unlawful subsequent use of that data in breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), a mandatory component of the DVLA's governance framework for data access.

Once a private parking operator is given access to keeper data, that data may only be used in compliance with the KADOE contract, which incorporates the applicable Code of Practice. Breaches of the Code render further use of that data unlawful, amounting to a misuse of personal information under the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018.

The original complaint identified multiple serious breaches of the PPSCoP, including:

• Failure to provide legally required signage viewable from the vehicle, contrary to Section 4.1;
• Discriminatory conduct towards a disabled occupant of the vehicle, in breach of the Equality Act and the PPSCoP;
• Failure to provide a meaningful response to a formal complaint, contrary to Section 11.2;
• Misrepresentation of the appeals window on the NtK, in breach of Section 8.1.2(e).

Your Step 1 response failed to consider or even acknowledge these points. Instead, it offered a general explanation of DVLA’s role in data release, which is not in dispute. It also incorrectly implies that alleged breaches of the Code are purely a matter for the IPC. This misstates the DVLA’s obligations under the KADOE contract.

As data controller, the DVLA retains legal responsibility for ensuring data obtained under KADOE is only used in accordance with the terms under which it was provided. Deferring responsibility to the ATA is not sufficient where misuse is clearly evidenced and brought to the DVLA’s direct attention.

In summary:

• The original data request may have had reasonable cause;
• However, the subsequent use of that data by G24 Ltd breached the PPSCoP;
• This breach renders the continued use of my personal data unlawful;
• The DVLA, as data controller, must investigate and consider enforcement action under the terms of the KADOE contract.

I now ask for a formal Step 2 review of my complaint, with reference to the above breaches and the attached supporting statement. Please also confirm whether the DVLA has taken steps to audit or review G24’s compliance in light of this complaint.

I await your full response and a new reference number for this escalation.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
[Your Contact Details]
[Vehicle Registration]
[Attachments: Supporting Statement]
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: b789 on April 06, 2025, 08:26:12 pm
What did you put in the supporting statement for this?

"[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.]"
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: Chris_S on April 06, 2025, 04:59:58 pm
I have received a reply from DVLA couple of days ago. Please read below. It does not seem very helpful.
Thank you for your correspondence of 31st March 2025 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 G24 Ltd who made the request to the DVLA for
the registered keeper details for vehicle registration number (VRN) CK61 WRR.
G24 Ltd have confirmed Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) were issued on 7th and 14th
February 2025 consecutively for failure to pay to park at the Edmonton Green
Shopping Centre car park. G24 Ltd have further confirmed receipt of your appeals
which were subsequently rejected, and both PCN’s remain outstanding.
While seeking to ensure that vehicle keeper data is released only in appropriate
circumstances, it is not a matter for the Agency to decide on the merits of individual
cases or to arbitrate in any civil disputes between motorists and private car park
enforcement companies. The DVLA cannot regulate any aspect of a company’s
business. Any representations should be made to the landowner or his agent. The
DVLA releases information on the basis that reasonable cause is demonstrated.

Page 2 of 2
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, G24 Ltd, is a member of the International Parking
Community Ltd (IPC) which is an Accredited Trade Association for the parking
industry. The IPC’s code of practice is published on its website at www.theipc.info
under the heading Accredited Operators Scheme. If a member of this AOS 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 IPC’s code of practice, you may wish to
contact the IPC via their website or by writing to IPC, at PO Box 662 SK10 9NR.
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
Mrs Lisa Boucher
Data Customer Auditor
Data Assurance Team/Information & Assurance Group
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: Chris_S on April 03, 2025, 08:58:37 am
I have sent the complaint to DVLA and got the response that they are investigating the matter.
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: b789 on April 03, 2025, 12:49:59 am
Not much more you can do for now. You could make a formal complaint to the DVLA. I’ll post a template you can use below.

In the meantime you can safely ignore all the debt collector demands. They are powerless and you must never, ever communicate with a useless debt recovery company. All they can do is try and scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear. Ignore them and we don’t need to know about them.

If/when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC), come back and show us.

Here’s how to make a DVLA complaint:

• Go to: https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/complaints
• Select: “Making a complaint or compliment about the Vehicles service you have received”
• Enter your personal details, contact details, and vehicle details
• Use the text box to summarise your complaint or insert a covering note
• You will then be able to upload a file (up to 19.5 MB) — this can be your full complaint or supporting evidence
That’s it.

The DVLA is required to record, investigate and respond to every complaint about a private parking company. If everyone who encounters a breach took the time to submit a complaint, we might finally see the DVLA take meaningful action—whether that means curtailing or removing KADOE access altogether.

For the text part of the complaint the webform could use the following:

I am submitting a formal complaint against [INSERT PPC NAME], an [INSERT IPC or 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.

Then you could upload the following as a PDF file for the formal complaint itself:

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP

Operator name: [INSERT PPC NAME]
Date of PCN issue: [INSERT DATE]
Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]

I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my personal data by [INSERT PPC NAME], 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, [INSERT PPC NAME] has breached the PPSCoP in the following ways:

[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.]

These are not minor or technical breaches. They show 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

I have attached relevant supporting material with this statement. Please confirm receipt and provide a reference for this complaint. I am also happy to provide further information if required.

Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]
Date: [INSERT DATE]
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: Chris_S on April 02, 2025, 10:13:28 pm
This is the response I got from the IPC: Thank you for contacting us regarding one of our members.

Concerns regarding the lawfulness of the parking charge cannot be dealt with under the complaints procedure. Such issues must be considered under the appeals procedure as the IPC cannot comment upon, or interfere with, individual parking charges.

Details of the appeals procedure have been provided to you on the notice.

Appeals must first be made directly to the Operator who issued the charge to you in accordance with their internal appeals procedure. Thereafter, if you are not satisfied with the result, appeals can be made to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS).

Further details of the IAS can be found at www.theIAS.org.

Should an operator reject your appeal, you will have 28 days to submit your further appeal.

Yours sincerely
The IPC.


I did not expect anything else, but at least it's chalked up as done. Is there anything else I should be doing at this point?
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: Chris_S on April 02, 2025, 09:36:28 am
I have used their online complaint route as mentioned before - https://portal.theipc.info/cases/complaints. I have uploaded all the correspondence and photo evidence, as they have requested it.
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: b789 on April 01, 2025, 03:00:53 pm
Then send it to contact@theipc.info
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: Chris_S on April 01, 2025, 02:44:14 pm

Address not found.
Your message wasn't delivered to complaints@theipc.info because the address couldn't be found, or is unable to receive mail.
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: b789 on April 01, 2025, 01:01:16 pm
When you say the email "bounced back", did it bounce with an error message or was it simply an auto response message?
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: Chris_S on April 01, 2025, 12:52:10 pm
I could not, it does not allow copied text!
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: b789 on April 01, 2025, 11:00:59 am
You could have simply copied and pasted the content.
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: Chris_S on April 01, 2025, 12:45:12 am
I have sent the complaint to IPC by email but it bounced back. I had to use their portal for complaints (https://portal.theipc.info/cases/complaints), where the complaint cannot be copied and pasted, it needed to be typed in (twice in my case, for each PCN received). They do not make it easy, and I do not expect them to be objective. I have sent the complaint about G24 to DVLA and will send another one about the IPC if necessary.
Many thanks for your help, @b789, you have been absolutely amazing. I hope this will get resolved soon. Kind Regards, Chris
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: b789 on March 31, 2025, 04:33:22 pm
They would not have responded to anyone except the person named on the NtK. In which case, it may be worth adapting everything I have given you to send as from your wife, the Keeper, and to simply make all references to "the driver".
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: Chris_S on March 31, 2025, 03:55:03 pm
I cannot access the appeal details and therefore I am not sure if I appealed in my wife's name or mine. However, their response was to my wife, which would imply I put her name in the online appeal form.
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: b789 on March 31, 2025, 03:22:37 pm
In which case everything must be done in your wife's name as the NtK was addressed to her. She can transfer liability away from herself by simply telling the operator your name and address as the driver.

However, if the drivers identity has not been revealed, your wife has the added benefit of being to appeal only as the Keeper and simply refer to the driver in the third person. So, any correspondence suggested should be from your wife and referring to you only as the driver. She is not under any legal obligation whatsoever to identify you.

So, please clarify what has been said so far in this matter. Has your name, as the driver, been mentioned or not? When you initially appealed, was it appealed in your name or your wife's name?

Either way, if this were to ever get as far as a court hearing, either you as the driver or your wife as the Keeper have a very god defence. If this is not cancelled and they issue a claim, that is excellent news for you. The county court is the ultimate dispute resolution service. There is absolutely no danger of a CCJ or anything else by following this route.
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: Chris_S on March 31, 2025, 02:49:05 pm
Yes, it was my wife who received them, and I was a driver in both instances, as I mostly drive my son around. However, I am not exactly sure what I stated in the original response (https://www.appealyourcharge.co.uk/Home/MakeAnAppeal) as I haven't taken a screenshot of it.
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: DWMB2 on March 31, 2025, 01:34:59 pm
Yes, potentially. In your opening post you said that you had received PCNs. Was it actually your wife who received them?
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: Chris_S on March 31, 2025, 01:21:37 pm
Thank you, I really appreciate your help with this problem.
I will submit the complaint to IPC as well as DVLA.
I am actually not a Keeper of the vehicle, my wife is. I was the driver in both instances though. I am not sure if that makes any difference at this point?
Kind Regards,
Chris
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: b789 on March 31, 2025, 12:51:18 pm
I presume that that is G24's response to the formal complaint letter you were advised to send. Did you make a formal complaint to the DVLA? If not, I will provide advice on how to do that. It takes minutes to do online.

As this is likely to escalate to a court claim, which is a good thing, I propose a few things...

As the core defence will be the fact that no contract was formed due to the deficient signage and their failure to comply with section 4.1 of the PPSCoP, as outlined in your formal complaint, it is not worth pursuing the no Keeper liability angle because it would become obvious that the Keeper was also the driver in this instance.

I suggest a formal complaint to the IPC. Not because I expect them to challenge G24 meaningfully or that you can expect a reversal of the PCN or any finding in your favour, but because it establishes a paper trail of reasonable conduct by you.

If G24 escalate this to a court claim, being able to show you pursued every formal complaint route, including their ATA, reinforces your reasonableness. It paints G24 as unresponsive and inflexible, especially when the IPC fail to engage with the PPSCoP breach or visible signage issue.

A weak, dismissive, or copy-paste response from the IPC (which is highly likely) can be used as evidence of:
• Lack of genuine oversight by the ATA
• Lack of meaningful redress in the system for disabled motorists
• Support for a Parliamentary or DVLA complaint about KADOE access oversight

The breach of Section 4.1 of the PPSCoP is specifically within IPC’s remit. Even if they brush it off, you’ve now anchored your complaint to their own Code, and their failure to uphold it supports a future claim of systemic failure.

So, I suggest the following as your formal complaint to the IPC by email to complaints@theipc.info and CC in yourself:

Quote
To: complaints@theipc.info

Subject: Formal Complaint – G24 Ltd – Failure to Comply with PPSCoP Section 4.1

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am submitting this formal complaint regarding G24 Ltd and their handling of Parking Charge Notice [insert PCN reference], issued in relation to Edmonton Green Shopping Centre, 62 Smythe Close, London, N9 0TZ.

The complaint concerns G24’s failure to comply with Section 4.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). Specifically, the only signage visible from the disabled bay stated:

“Disabled bays are for disabled badge holders only. All Disabled Blue Badge Holders must clearly display their badge to prevent being issued with a PCN.”

The Blue Badge was correctly displayed at all times. No other terms were visible from the vehicle. Therefore, even if a contract could have been formed, the driver complied fully with all terms actually conveyed, meaning no breach occurred. If other terms existed elsewhere, they were not visible to the driver and cannot form part of any alleged agreement.

As I was with my disabled son who requires constant attention, it is not feasible to leave the vehicle to search for hidden signs elsewhere in the car park. Section 4.1 of the PPSCoP requires that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions must be viewable without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, particularly for disabled motorists.

G24’s signage setup failed to comply with this requirement, resulting in a charge issued despite full compliance with the only visible sign. This is both a breach of the Code and potentially discriminatory.

I raised these issues clearly in both the initial appeal and a formal complaint to G24. The operator failed to 'respond meaningfully' to the formal complaint and did not engage with the specific points raised. This is a further breach of PPSCoP Section 11.2, which requires operators to provide a transparent complaints procedure and to issue a 'meaningful response' to such complaints, particularly when they concern the handling of a Parking Charge Notice.

This complaint is submitted for the record and in case G24 escalate the matter to court or debt recovery. While I hold limited expectations regarding impartial redress, I nonetheless expect the IPC to demonstrate that it is capable of holding its members to account, as required under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.
If the IPC is unwilling or unable to ensure that operators respond meaningfully to formal complaints or comply with mandatory signage requirements under Section 4.1 of the PPSCoP, I will be forced to draw adverse inferences about the efficacy and independence of the IPC's complaints process and may raise this with the DVLA and other relevant authorities.

Please acknowledge receipt and confirm that this complaint will be recorded.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Vehicle Registration Number]
[PCN Reference Number]

So, for now, get that off to the IPC. Below is the instruction on how to make the DVLA complaint:

• Go to: https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/complaints
• Select: “Making a complaint or compliment about the Vehicles service you have received”
• Enter your personal details, contact details, and vehicle details
• Use the text box to summarise your complaint or insert a covering note
• You will then be able to upload a file (up to 19.5 MB) — this can be your full complaint or supporting evidence
That’s it.

The DVLA is required to record, investigate and respond to every complaint about a private parking company. If everyone who encounters a breach took the time to submit a complaint, we might finally see the DVLA take meaningful action—whether that means curtailing or removing KADOE access altogether.

For the text part of the complaint the webform could use the following:

I am submitting a formal complaint against G24 Ltd, an IPC AOS member with DVLA KADOE access, for breaching the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) after obtaining my personal data.

While G24 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.

Specifically, G24 issued a PCN based on alleged breach of parking terms that were not visible from the vehicle. They failed to provide signage in accordance with Section 4.1 of the PPSCoP, especially critical for disabled motorists, and ignored a formal complaint which raised this point. A Blue Badge was properly displayed and the only visible sign had been fully complied with.

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 attached a supporting statement outlining the breach and request that this matter be fully investigated. Please acknowledge receipt and confirm the reference number for this complaint.

Then you could upload the following as a PDF file for the formal complaint itself:

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)

Operator name: G24 Ltd
Date of PCN issue: 7th February 2025
Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]

I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my personal data by G24 Ltd, who obtained my keeper details from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) contract.

Although G24 may have had reasonable cause to request my data initially, the way they have used that data amounts to unlawful processing. This is because they have acted in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)—the mandatory framework which governs their access to DVLA data.

The breaches are as follows:

1. Failure to Comply with Section 4.1 of the PPSCoP – Signage Accessibility

G24 failed to provide a sign containing the full terms and conditions of parking that could be viewed from the vehicle. The only sign visible in the disabled bay stated:

“Disabled bays are for disabled badge holders only. All Disabled Blue Badge Holders must clearly display their badge to prevent being issued with a PCN.”

This sign was complied with in full. No other terms (e.g. payment requirements or Blue Badge registration) were visible or available from the vehicle. This directly contravenes PPSCoP Section 4.1, which requires that:

“The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the vehicle...”

2. Discriminatory and Unlawful Conduct Toward Disabled Motorists

The driver was accompanied by a disabled child who required constant supervision. Expecting a parent in such a situation to leave the vehicle to hunt for signage is both unreasonable and discriminatory. G24 failed to make reasonable adjustments, breaching the spirit of the Equality Act 2010 and the accessibility obligations embedded within the PPSCoP.

3. Failure to Respond Meaningfully to a Formal Complaint

G24 failed to engage with the substance of a formal written complaint. The response was generic and ignored the specific allegations, including the signage breach and the display of a valid Blue Badge. This contravenes PPSCoP Section 11.2, which requires operators to provide a transparent complaints procedure and a meaningful response to complaints relating to PCNs.

4. Misleading Appeals Information – PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e) Breach

G24’s Notice to Keeper informs the Keeper that any appeal “must be made within 28 days of the date of issue” of the NtK. This directly contradicts Section 8.1.2(e) of the PPSCoP, which states:

“The parking operator must ensure that a notice informs the recipient: that if the recipient appeals within 28 days of receiving the parking charge, the right to pay at the rate applicable...”

By unlawfully shortening the Keeper’s appeal window, G24 has misrepresented the appeals process and placed an unfair restriction on the Keeper’s rights. This breach is not merely technical — it may cause a recipient to believe they are out of time when, in fact, the 28-day period has not yet started.

These are not minor breaches. They show a disregard for the regulatory framework that governs the use of DVLA Keeper data. Once that data has been obtained, the KADOE contract allows it to be used only for pursuing charges in full compliance with the Code of Practice.

G24’s failure to follow the Code renders their continued use of my data unlawful. I therefore ask the DVLA, as data controller, to investigate this breach and consider whether enforcement action — including suspension of KADOE access — is appropriate.

The DVLA is the data controller for keeper data released under KADOE and is therefore responsible for ensuring that such data is not misused by operators. I request that the DVLA:

1. Investigates this complaint in full
2. Confirms whether a breach has occurred
3. Considers appropriate enforcement action, including suspension or termination of KADOE access if necessary

As the DVLA complaints form only permits uploading a single file, I can provide further evidence upon request should it be required.


Name: [Insert your name]
Date: [Insert today’s date]
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: Chris_S on March 30, 2025, 08:08:24 pm
Hello again,
I have received the responses from G24. Unsurprisingly, they have stuck to their guns. Standard reply, not addressing issues raised in my complaint. Responses to both PCNs are identical, please see here:
https://ibb.co/HTH89xv1
https://ibb.co/HLR5v17R
https://ibb.co/gbfcGPtH

What should be my next step?

Thank you, Chris
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: b789 on March 09, 2025, 11:49:48 pm
Make sure you do the DVLA complaint too. That is probably the one they most fear. If there are enough regular complaints about their KADOE breaches, the DVLA will be forced to act and they risk having their access to DVLA data suspended or completely withdrawn.
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: Chris_S on March 09, 2025, 08:58:28 pm
Thank you. I have emailed the letters and will send copies by email tomorrow. I will let you know what happens next. Kind Regards, Chris
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: b789 on March 08, 2025, 07:32:33 pm
Maybe you didn't reveal the drivers identity if they are requesting it in their response to your appeal. If so, send the following as a formal complaint, separately for each PCN, to G24:

Quote
Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Unlawful Parking Charge & KADOE Breach

G24 Ltd
Complaints Department
PO BOX 3320
Gerrards Cross
SL9 8WT.

By email to: info@g24.co.uk

Dear G24 Ltd,

Re: Parking Charge Notice [PCN Reference]

I write in response to your recent correspondence requesting the driver’s details and to escalate this as a formal complaint regarding your unlawful issuance of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and your potential breach of the DVLA’s Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract.

1. No Contract Was Formed – The Driver Fully Complied with the Only Visible Terms

Your signage at the disabled bays clearly states:

"Disabled bays are for disabled badge holders only.
All Disabled Blue Badge Holders must clearly display their badge to prevent being issued with a PCN."

The driver complied fully with these terms by displaying the Blue Badge. No other terms were visible, and no requirement to register the badge or pay a tariff was mentioned on the only sign at the disabled bays.

Any additional terms—if they exist—were not visible from within the vehicle and were not in the immediate vicinity of the disabled bays. The driver could not have agreed to any hidden terms, making this charge unenforceable.

2. Breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)

Your failure to provide visible terms near the disabled bays directly contravenes Section 4.1 of the PPSCoP, which states:

"The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, in order for drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed decision on whether to park at the premises."

Since there was no such sign near the disabled bays, you have failed to comply with the PPSCoP, meaning no enforceable contract was formed. This also raises concerns about discriminatory practices against disabled motorists.

3. No Keeper Liability – Your Notice to Keeper Fails PoFA 2012

Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued too late to comply with the 14-day limit for delivery as required under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5) of PoFA 2012, meaning you cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.

Furthermore, your NtK contains the following unlawful and misleading statement:

"If we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, we may assume you to be the driver and you may incur further charges."

This is not permitted under PoFA, and any attempt to infer keeper liability outside of PoFA is misrepresentation of legal position, which can be considered fraudulent misrepresentation under the Fraud Act 2006, Section 2.

Since you are not relying on PoFA, you cannot lawfully pursue the registered keeper. Any further demands directed at me as the keeper will be reported as harassment.

4. Misuse of Keeper Data & Breach of the DVLA’s KADOE Contract

Since your signage fails to form a contract, and you cannot establish liability under PoFA, you had no reasonable cause to obtain my Keeper data from the DVLA.

The DVLA’s KADOE contract strictly requires that Keeper data can only be accessed where:

• A parking charge is lawfully enforceable
• The operator fully complies with relevant legislation and the applicable Code of Practice

You have failed on both counts. As a result, I am formally reporting this case to the DVLA and demanding an investigation into your unlawful data access and potential suspension of your KADOE access.

I will also be escalating this to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for data protection breaches under UK GDPR.

5. Required Action from G24 – Formal Complaint

I now require the following within 14 days:

1. Immediate cancellation of the PCN due to lack of enforceability.
2. Written confirmation that my Keeper data has been erased and will not be processed further.
3. A full response to this formal complaint, including an explanation of why you obtained my Keeper data without a lawful basis.

Failure to respond adequately will result in further action, including complaints to:

• The DVLA – for a full KADOE contract breach investigation
• The ICO – for UK GDPR violations
• My MP – regarding the misuse of DVLA data by private parking firms

6. Data Protection Warning – Cease & Desist Further Processing of My Data

Under UK GDPR, you are unlawfully processing my personal data. You had no legal basis to obtain or retain my information. If you fail to cancel this charge, I will escalate this as a data protection breach to the ICO, and you may face enforcement action.

I expect a substantive response within 14 days. If you fail to cancel the charge, I will escalate this further.

This is your final warning. If I receive any further demands, I will take all necessary legal action to hold you accountable.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
Registered Keeper of Vehicle [Registration Number]

You can also submit a complaint to the DVLA at the same time.
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: Chris_S on March 03, 2025, 09:29:33 pm
Dear b789, thank you kindly for your response and offer to help. Yes, I am prepared to fight it all the way. Please see full Notices to Keeper here:
First notice: https://ibb.co/Nqcjm1r and https://ibb.co/Jjz7m43V
Second notice: https://ibb.co/WNbjBhjq and https://ibb.co/CpdpKrGh.
Please let me know if you need anything else. Thank you, Chris.
Title: Re: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: b789 on March 03, 2025, 10:20:42 am
Don’t worry. You won’t be paying a penny to these scammers if you follow our advice. Please show the full Notice to Keeper (NtK) and the back, redacting only your personal details, the PCN number and your VRM. Leave all dates and times visible.

It’s too late to rely on PoFA failures as you have inadvertently admitted to being the driver. However, the signs you showed are in breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section 4.1 which states:

”The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, in order for drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed decision on whether to park at the premises.”

The Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) were not issued for not displaying a blue badge but for not paying the tariff for parking. The terms signs require blue badge holders to register their vehicle at a terminal for three hours free parking.

However, you were not aware of this condition of parking because the operator did not display the terms and conditions in a position that they could be read without needing to leave the vehicle. What condition that was visible, you complied with.

Any claim would not stand up in court, which is the most likely whay his will be defeated. G24 are a vexatious firm of ex-clampers. We will assist you in defeating this but you will have to follow the advice we give.

Are you prepared to fight this all the way if necessary?
Title: Blue Badge parking - failed to authorize Blue Badge
Post by: Chris_S on March 02, 2025, 10:54:02 pm
Hi,
I have recently received two PCNs for parking at Edmonton Green shopping centre in Enfield. I was there with my son, who is disabled. I parked at disabled spot which looked like this: https://ibb.co/3mF1KsCw.
I have displayed the Blue Badge upon parking.
Few weeks later I received two PCNs which looked pretty much identical save for the date/duration of the infraction - please see here: https://ibb.co/rfRbVq1X.
Turned out there was another sign elsewhere in the parking lot specifying the conditions for the Blue Badge users, which can be seen here: https://ibb.co/zTmDpKM0
I should mention that my son's disability requires my full attention.
I have responded to both of them as follows:
I arrived at the Edmonton Green Shopping Centre parking lot with my disabled son and parked in the disabled bay displaying the Blue Badge. The bay was clearly signposted as per the attached picture. The signage did not mention any requirements regarding the Blue Badge parking. Posting additional requirements elsewhere in the parking area is not sensible as my son requires assistance and I do not go around the whole parking lot looking for further instructions. Not to mention the fact that the requirement of registering the Blue Badge with some office is onerous and discriminatory to the disabled people, who often have difficulty moving around. 

As per wording on your signage: All Disabled Blue Badge Holders must clearly display their badge to prevent being issued with a PCN. We had done so, therefore I request the PCN be cancelled.


I have promptly received two identical responses last week, please see here: https://ibb.co/Pf1z5V7
The company in question is G24 Ltd.

What should be my next steps? Appealing to IAS? I find this "authorization of the Blue Badge" process quite repulsive. I would have no problem with paying the parking charge had I not been misled by the signage.
Thank you in advance for any help on this.

Chris