Luckily, a POPLA decision is not binding on you. This is a breakdown of the assessor’s mistakes in your POPLA decision. These aren’t just oversights — they’re fundamental failures to apply the law and logic correctly and evidence of why POPLA is not fit for purpose:
1. Location Description (PoFA 9(2)(a))
Mistake: The assessor claimed that because Arundel Road is included in the NtK, the location is sufficiently identified.
Why it’s wrong: PoFA requires a specific location, not a vague cluster of roads or a general postcode. UB8 2RZ covers multiple roads, and the operator themselves said the incident occurred at UB8 2RP — a completely different postcode. That’s a factual error in the NtK, and the assessor ignored it.
2. Period of Parking / 44 Seconds
Mistake: The assessor said that because the vehicle was “observed parked”, a contract was breached.
Why it’s wrong: The Code of Practice mandates a minimum five-minute consideration period. The operator’s own evidence shows the vehicle was there for just 44 seconds. That’s not enough time to read, understand, and accept any terms. The assessor completely ignored this and assumed a contract existed just because a PCN was issued. That’s circular logic and legally absurd.
3. Prohibitory Signage
Mistake: The assessor said the signage was clear and sufficient.
Why it’s wrong: Clarity is irrelevant if the signage is prohibitory. “No parking, waiting, loading or unloading” is not an offer — it’s a prohibition. You cited PCM v Bull (2016), which confirms that prohibitory signs cannot form a contract. The assessor didn’t even acknowledge the case law, let alone apply it.
4. Creditor Identification (PoFA 9(2)(h))
Mistake: The assessor said the operator identified themselves and gave payment details, so PoFA was satisfied.
Why it’s wrong: PoFA requires the creditor to be clearly named in the body of the notice. Using “we” is legally meaningless. The assessor conflated branding or letterhead with statutory compliance. That’s a basic failure to understand the legal requirement.
5. Landowner Authority
Mistake: The assessor accepted the landowner agreement without question.
Why it’s wrong: The agreement was riddled with defects — no proof that Trade Sales owns the land, no site map, no named signatory, and a reference to a non-existent “British Association”. The assessor ignored all of this and blindly accepted the document. That’s not adjudication — it’s rubber-stamping.
6. Keeper Liability
Mistake: The assessor said the NtK warned the keeper, so liability transferred.
Why it’s wrong: PoFA requires full compliance with all conditions before liability can transfer. You showed multiple breaches — vague location, failure to name the creditor, no valid contract. The assessor cherry-picked one clause and ignored the rest. That’s a complete misapplication of the law.
Summary
Lisa Lea didn’t adjudicate — she glossed over every substantive point and gave a boilerplate response. She ignored statutory requirements, misapplied case law, and failed to engage with the operator’s own contradictory evidence. Her decision is legally defective and factually lazy.
This would never stand up in court. However, you now have to weather the useless debt recovery letters. You can safely ignore all debt collectors. The only power they have is to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.
Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC).
In the meantime you can make a formal complaint to POPLA about the utter incompetence of Lisa Lea. I suggest you copy and paste the following into the complaint webform here: https://www.popla.co.uk/contact
Subject: Formal Complaint – POPLA Decision by Assessor Lisa Lea (Ref: [Insert POPLA Ref])
To the Lead Adjudicator,
I am submitting a formal complaint regarding the decision issued by Assessor Lisa Lea in my appeal against Private Parking Solutions Ltd. The decision is legally defective and procedurally flawed. I understand POPLA operates a single-stage process and does not reverse decisions, but I require a written response to this complaint for the record, as I intend to rely on it in future proceedings.
The following errors are clear and unacceptable:
1. The assessor wrongly accepted a vague multi-road location and postcode (UB8 2RZ) as compliant with PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), even though the operator’s own evidence stated the incident occurred at UB8 2RP. This is a factual discrepancy and a breach of the requirement to specify a particular location.
2. The operator claimed the vehicle was present for just 44 seconds. The Code of Practice requires a minimum five-minute consideration period. The assessor ignored this completely and assumed a contract was formed simply because a PCN was issued. That is circular reasoning and shows a failure to understand basic contract law.
3. The signage was prohibitory, stating “No parking, waiting, loading or unloading.” This is not an offer to park under terms. The assessor failed to apply the relevant case law (PCM v Bull 2016), which confirms that prohibitory signs cannot form a contract.
4. The Notice to Keeper used the term “we” without naming a legal entity as the creditor. The assessor wrongly concluded that branding or payment instructions elsewhere on the notice satisfied PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(h). This is legally incorrect. The creditor must be clearly named in the body of the notice.
5. The landowner agreement provided by the operator was defective. It referenced a non-existent organisation (“British Association”), lacked a site map, failed to identify the signatory, and gave no proof that Trade Sales had authority to grant enforcement rights. The assessor ignored all of this and accepted the document without scrutiny.
6. The assessor claimed keeper liability transferred because the NtK warned the keeper. This ignores the requirement for full compliance with all PoFA conditions. Multiple breaches were evident, yet the assessor cherry-picked one clause and disregarded the rest.
7. The assessor repeatedly referred to the location as a “car park.” This is factually wrong. The alleged contravention occurred on a public-access road within an industrial estate, not in a car park. Roads are not car parks. The only time a road could be considered a car park is during a traffic jam, and even then not legally. This mischaracterisation shows a complete failure to understand the nature of the site and undermines the entire basis of the decision.
This decision is legally incoherent and procedurally negligent. It fails to apply statutory requirements, ignores binding case law, and accepts flawed evidence without scrutiny. I request that the Lead Adjudicator reviews this complaint and confirms whether these issues have been acknowledged and whether any internal action will be taken to address the assessor’s conduct.
I do not expect the decision to be reversed, but I do expect a formal written response for the record.
The ICA's reply is standard boilerplate, but there are some critical points here that can and should be responded to strategically to shape how they eventually approach your case.
They are asking you:
"At this stage... what your main outstanding concerns are, and what you hope to achieve through your complaint".
This is an opportunity to frame the review around administrative failings, poor decision-making, and failure to apply DVLA policy properly—which are within the ICA’s remit.
I suggest the following response to send back to the ICA that keeps within their jurisdiction, but exposes the DVLA's procedural failings and mismanagement:
Subject: Response to ICA Query – PPS Case / DVLA Step 2 Complaint
Dear [ICA Officer's Name],
Thank you for your acknowledgement of my complaint and for outlining the scope of your review.
You asked what my main outstanding concerns are and what I hope to achieve. I fully understand that the ICA cannot investigate the validity of private parking charges or alter DVLA policy. My complaint is not about whether the original release of data was lawful, but rather the DVLA’s failure to handle my complaint properly once evidence of a serious breach came to light.
My key concerns are as follows:
1. The DVLA accepted false information without scrutiny.
Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd falsely claimed to the DVLA that no appeal had been received. This statement was used as the basis to dismiss my Step 1 complaint. I later provided a copy of the operator’s own appeal rejection letter dated 6 May 2025, which proves beyond doubt that an appeal had been received, processed, and responded to. Despite this, the Step 2 response from the DVLA failed to acknowledge or correct this contradiction.
2. The DVLA failed to exercise oversight under the KADOE contract.
Once evidence was submitted showing that the operator had both misled the DVLA and breached the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (by ignoring my appeal until prompted), the DVLA took no action and closed the case. No enforcement step was taken under the KADOE contract, no warning issued, and no recognition made of the seriousness of the operator’s misconduct. This reflects a failure to meet the DVLA’s duty as Data Controller under UK GDPR and the DPA 2018.
3. The DVLA's response shows a lack of impartiality.
I note from your own letter that over 41,000 private PCNs are issued each day. This scale of data use by private operators appears to have created a culture in which the DVLA is reluctant to challenge parking companies for fear of disrupting this revenue-generating scheme. The refusal to act against an operator who provided false information to a government agency undermines public trust and calls into question whether the DVLA’s complaints process is being applied fairly or merely as a procedural formality.
While I understand that the ICA cannot investigate financial motives or policy outcomes, I believe this context is relevant to understanding why the DVLA failed to investigate the matter properly and why enforcement mechanisms were not triggered.
I am not seeking to reverse the data release, nor to challenge KADOE policy. What I seek is an independent finding that:
• The DVLA failed to investigate the complaint properly;
• The DVLA accepted and relied on factually incorrect information provided by a KADOE user;
• The complaint was closed without addressing the proven misrepresentation;
• There was no meaningful enforcement of the KADOE contract obligations despite clear evidence of misuse;
These failures amount to poor administration and a breach of the DVLA’s duty to fairly manage complaints and uphold data protection principles.
Thank you for your time and for reviewing this matter. I am happy to provide further supporting material if needed.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
Here is a tidied up version of what you have put together:
POPLA Appeal Submission
Appellant: [Your Full Name]
POPLA Verification Code: [Insert Code]
Operator: [Insert Operator Name]
PCN Number: [Insert PCN Number]
Date of Notice: [Insert Date]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
Grounds of Appeal
1. Inadequate Location Description – Breach of PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a)
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), which requires the notice to “specify the land on which the vehicle was parked.”
The location stated on the NtK is:
“UXBRIDGE IND EST, Wallingford Rd, Salisbury Rd, Arundel Rd, UXBRIDGE, UB8 2RZ”
This is not a specific location but a generalised grouping of roads spanning a large industrial estate. In fact, the postcode UB8 2RZ does not even cover all the roads listed. The contravention, according to the operator’s own photographic evidence, occurred at a completely different postcode (UB8 2RP).
The NtK is vague, ambiguous and fails to meet the statutory requirement to "specify the land" where the vehicle was allegedly parked. A keeper receiving such a notice cannot reasonably ascertain where the incident took place. This is a clear breach of PoFA and invalidates any attempt to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
2. No ‘Period of Parking’ Stated – Breach of PoFA and Failure to Establish Contract
The NtK only provides a single timestamp rather than a period of parking. This breaches PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), which states that the notice must:
“Specify the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
This deficiency was clarified in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where the court found that a timestamp is not the same as a “period” and does not satisfy the statutory requirement.
Furthermore, the operator has not shown that any parking took place beyond a reasonable consideration or grace period. Without establishing a specific and measurable duration of stay, the operator cannot demonstrate that any contractual relationship was formed.
A valid contract requires:
• An offer,
• Acceptance,
• Consideration.
In the absence of evidence showing a defined duration of parking, no acceptance or consideration can be presumed. This is a critical failure, both in terms of compliance with PoFA and in proving that a contractual agreement ever came into existence.
3. Prohibitive Signage – No Contract Formed
The alleged breach is described as:
“Parking in a No Parking Area”
This wording constitutes a prohibition, not an offer of terms that can form the basis of a contract. Where signage forbids an action entirely (i.e., parking is “not permitted”), no contract can be formed. This was confirmed in PCM v Bull (2016) [B4GF26K6], where the court held that a prohibitory notice cannot give rise to contractual liability.
In such cases, any alleged wrongdoing is more akin to trespass, which only the landowner (not a parking operator) may pursue through the courts. The operator cannot rely on contract law where no contractual terms were offered or accepted.
4. Failure to Identify the Creditor – Breach of PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(h)
Paragraph 9(2)(h) of PoFA requires that the NtK:
“Identify the creditor.”
The NtK in this case merely states:
“We, the creditor, require payment…”
The word “we” is wholly insufficient to identify any specific legal entity. It could refer to the operator, the landowner, or some unnamed third party. The requirement under PoFA is not simply to label the notice as coming from “the creditor,” but to name the party to whom the alleged debt is owed.
Without this, the notice fails to comply with statutory requirements and the keeper cannot be held liable.
5. Lack of Landowner Authority – Operator Lacks Standing
I put the operator to strict proof that they have a current and valid contract with the landowner that:
• Grants authority to issue PCNs at the exact location in question;
• Confers the right to take enforcement action, including litigation, in the operator’s own name;
• Specifically includes the area identified in the photographs, not just the general industrial estate.
The BPA Code of Practice (Section 7.1) requires operators to have written authorisation for every site they manage. The contract must be specific to the land and must be made available upon request. In the absence of such proof, the operator has no legal standing and no right to pursue charges.
6. Driver Not Identified – Keeper Not Liable
The operator has not identified the driver, and no admission of driver identity has been made. They are therefore attempting to rely on PoFA to hold the keeper liable. However, as shown in all the preceding points, the NtK fails to meet multiple mandatory requirements under Schedule 4. The conditions for keeper liability have not been met.
As confirmed in VCS v Edward (2023), HHJ Gargan held that:
“Simply because somebody is the registered keeper does not mean, on balance of probability, they were driving…”
There is no presumption in law that the registered keeper was the driver, and the burden of proof remains with the operator.
Conclusion
This Parking Charge Notice is fundamentally flawed and unenforceable. The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with several provisions of PoFA and the signage on site is incapable of forming a contract. The operator has not demonstrated landowner authority, has not identified the driver, and cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the charge.
Their response confirms several critical points and contradictions that support your DVLA Step 2 escalation:
• PPS now admits that you did appeal: their responses refute their earlier claim (made to the DVLA) that “no appeal was received.”
• They insist a contract was formed by parking in a “no parking” zone, despite signage expressly stating no parking is allowed—a contradiction in terms and a well-established flaw in enforceability (as per PCM v Bull).
• They argue that a single timestamp is sufficient and that no period of parking is needed, directly contradicting the requirement in PoFA Schedule 4, para 9(2)(a) and the judgment in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H].
• They justify using a broad postcode location (UB8 2RZ) to cover multiple roads, although UB8 2RP was where the vehicle actually stopped. This supports your point about vague and inaccurate location data.
You now have conclusive evidence that PPS lied to the DVLA at Step 1 and did receive your appeal, and that they are now attempting to justify enforcement despite failing PoFA, using unlawful signage, and processing your data after breaching the PPSCoP.
Your complaint is no longer just about misuse of data—it is about:
• Dishonesty to a government agency (DVLA),
• Continuing enforcement using PoFA without compliance,
• Failure to acknowledge or respond to correspondence until later in the process, and
• Breach of Section 11.2 of the PPSCoP, as your original email was not treated as an appeal until they were forced into it.
Do you have a reference number for the Step 2 DVLA complaint? If so, you need to provide PPSs damning response to your formal complaint as evidence.
When you emailed the formal complaint and the follow up letter to PPS, did you CC in yourself? If so, do you have those emails that you received from yourself? They are indisputable proof that you sent them to PPS's published email address.
You now escalate this to a Step 2 complaint to the Head of Complaints at the DVLA. The only difference to the previous complaint is that you now go to this url to submit the Step 2 complaint:
https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/head-of-complaints
For the text part of the complaint the webform could use the following:
I am submitting a formal escalation under Step 2 of the DVLA’s complaints procedure regarding my original complaint (submitted 25 April 2025) concerning misuse of my personal data by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd.
The Step 1 response I received on 30 April 2025 contains a material inaccuracy: it states that "Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd have confirmed that no appeal was made by yourself."
This is demonstrably false.
I submitted a formal complaint, which under Section 11.2 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) must be treated as an appeal. I also sent a follow-up email. I have timestamped and CC’d copies of both emails, and can confirm they were delivered to the correct published contact address for PPS.
Despite this, PPS continued enforcement action and issued a further reminder without responding, in breach of the PPSCoP. This amounts to unlawful use of DVLA data, and now also includes a misrepresentation by the operator to a government agency.
I am attaching a detailed supporting statement with evidence, including the emails sent, the NtK and the reminder letter.
Please investigate the issue properly and confirm whether the DVLA will now take enforcement steps under the KADOE contract for this clear breach and misrepresentation.
Then you upload the following as a PDF file for the formal complaint itself:
Complaint to DVLA – Step 2 Escalation
Operator name: Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd
Date of PCN issue: 12 March 2025
Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]
Original complaint submitted: 25 April 2025
Step 1 response received: 30 April 2025
This is a formal Step 2 escalation under the DVLA’s complaints procedure. The Step 1 response issued on 30 April 2025 failed to address the core elements of my complaint and instead relied on a misleading and factually incorrect statement from Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd. The DVLA accepted, without verification, the operator’s claim that “no appeal was made by yourself”. That claim is demonstrably false and is now evidenced with this Step 2 submission.
On 22 March 2025, I submitted a formal complaint to Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd by email, which under Section 11.2 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) must be treated as an appeal. I followed up with a second email when no response was received. The operator ignored both communications and instead issued a reminder letter dated 11 April 2025. I hold timestamped, CC’d copies of both emails.
The DVLA’s Step 1 response failed to address the actual basis of my complaint, which was that the operator has used DVLA-supplied data unlawfully by:
• Issuing a Notice to Keeper that does not comply with PoFA 2012,
• Falsely asserting that keeper liability applies,
• Ignoring a formal complaint/appeal in breach of Sections 11.2 and 11.3.1 of the PPSCoP,
• Continuing enforcement despite the complaint being unresolved,
• Making a false statement to the DVLA that no appeal was received.
Rather than investigating these points, the Step 1 response provided a boilerplate explanation about the lawful release of data to ATA members and redirected me to the BPA, despite my complaint being about post-access misuse of data—not the initial request. This is a wholly inadequate response.
The DVLA is the Data Controller for keeper data released under KADOE. It is not enough to say that operators are members of an ATA. The PPSCoP is incorporated into the KADOE contract, and continued access is conditional on compliance. Once an operator breaches that Code, as has occurred here, their use of the data becomes unlawful. The DVLA’s obligation as Data Controller is to investigate misuse, especially when it continues after notification.
Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd has clearly breached the Code of Practice and misused my personal data. Worse still, they have misled the DVLA. The Step 1 response failed to consider this, failed to verify basic facts, and failed to fulfil the DVLA’s own oversight obligations under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.
I am now requesting a proper investigation at Step 2. The evidence proves that correspondence was sent and ignored. This renders the operator’s continued use of my data unlawful and the false representation to the DVLA an aggravating factor. I ask the DVLA to take action under the KADOE contract and to confirm what steps will be taken, including warning, suspension, or termination of access.
Attached:
• Copy of formal complaint email sent 22 March 2025 (CC’d copy)
• Copy of follow-up email [INSERT DATE] (CC’d copy)
Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]
Date: [INSERT TODAY'S DATE]
This is what you do now... You respond to PPS with the following:
Subject: Follow-Up: Outstanding Formal Complaint – No Response Received
Dear Sir/Madam,
On 22nd March 2025, I submitted a formal complaint relating to the Notice to Keeper issued on 12th March 2025. To date, I have received no response or acknowledgement.
I remind you that Section 11.2 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) requires you to treat complaints relating to a parking charge as appeals, and Section 11.3.1 requires a response.
You are now in breach of both.
I will escalate this breach to both the DVLA and, once I have documented your failure to comply with your internal complaints process, to the BPA. If no full and specific reply is received by [insert date five working days from now], I will consider your complaints procedure exhausted due to your non-compliance, and will inform the BPA accordingly.
I repeat my request for confirmation of the date the NtK entered the postal system (as per Section 8.1.2(e)) and a full reply to all points raised.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
Registered Keeper
You also follow this advice on how to make a DVLA complaint:
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 Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd, a BPA Approved Operator Scheme member with DVLA KADOE access, for breaching the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) after obtaining my personal data.
While the Operator may have had reasonable cause at the time of their KADOE request, their subsequent misuse of my data—through conduct that contravenes the PPSCoP—renders that use unlawful. The PPSCoP forms an integral part of the DVLA’s governance framework for data access by private parking firms. Continued access is conditional on compliance.
The DVLA, as data controller, is obliged under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 to investigate and take enforcement action when data is misused following release. This complaint is not about whether the data was obtained lawfully at the outset, but whether its subsequent use breached the terms under which it was provided.
I have prepared a supporting statement setting out the nature of the breach and the Operator’s actions, and I request a full investigation into this matter. I have attached the supporting document.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm the reference number for this complaint.
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: Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd
Date of PCN issue: 12 March 2025
Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]
I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my personal data by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd, who obtained my keeper details from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) contract.
Although the parking company may have had reasonable cause to request my data initially, the way they 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, Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd has breached the PPSCoP in the following ways:
• They issued a Notice to Keeper (NtK) that fails to specify a “period of parking”, as required under PoFA Schedule 4 para 9(2)(a). Only a single timestamp is given, which cannot evidence a parking period, as confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H].
• The NtK fails to identify the creditor, contrary to PoFA 9(2)(h), using only the phrase “We, the creditor...” with no named party identified.
• The location described in the NtK is vague and inaccurate, listing multiple roads and an incorrect postcode (UB8 2RZ), which does not correspond to the location of the alleged contravention (UB8 2RP). This fails to meet the requirement to “specify the land” under PoFA 9(2)(a).
• The charge relates to a prohibited activity (“Parking in a No Parking Area”), which is incapable of forming a contract. As confirmed in PCM v Bull, prohibitive signage does not offer terms capable of acceptance.
• The operator has failed to respond or even acknowledge a formal complaint submitted on 22 March 2025, in breach of PPSCoP Sections 11.2 and 11.3.1, which require complaints to be treated as appeals and responded to in a timely manner. A reminder notice dated 11 April 2025 was issued instead, showing active continuation of enforcement despite the outstanding complaint.
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]
The NtK is not PoFA complaint as it does not specify the period of parking as required under paragraph 9(2)(a). The notice also states that it was issued on 12th March. However, if you only received it today, 22nd March, you need to challenge them to provide evidence of the date it was actually posted or it entered the postal system.
Rather than appeal, You should send a formal complaint requiring them to provide the necessary evidence of posting. They are obliged to treat any complaint as an appeal anyway.
Send the following to info@privateparkingsolutions.co.uk and also CC in yourself. I have just checked their domain and it is down at the moment, so if the email bounces back to you, keep it as evidence.
Subject: FORMAL COMPLAINT – Non-compliant Notice to Keeper dated 22 March 2025
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write as the Registered Keeper in relation to a Notice to Keeper (NtK), reference number: [PCN ref number], received on 22 March 2025 concerning an alleged contravention dated 12 March 2025.
This letter constitutes a formal complaint, which you are obliged to treat as an appeal under Section 11.2 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). A full and reasoned response is required, and the issues raised below must be addressed in detail.
1. Inadequate Location Description
The NtK states the location as:
"UXBRIDGE IND EST, Wallingford Rd, Salisbury Rd, Arundel Rd, UXBRIDGE, UB8 2RZ"
This is not a single identifiable site but rather a broad grouping of separate roads which extend well beyond any identifiable 'Ind Est'. Additionally, UB8 2RZ is not a postcode that covers all those roads—on the contrary, it relates to a specific location, whereas the alleged contravention occurred at a different postcode entirely (UB8 2RP). This fails to satisfy PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a), which requires the notice to “specify the land on which the vehicle was parked”. A vague and potentially misleading group reference is not sufficient.
2. No 'Period of Parking' Specified
The NtK merely states a single timestamp. PoFA para 9(2)(a) requires that the NtK “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates”. A single moment in time does not evidence a period of parking. This principle was clearly addressed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where the Judge held that a timestamp alone is insufficient to demonstrate a period of parking. Without a specified duration and certainly not less than the consideration period, the NtK fails to establish that any contravention occurred, and thus keeper liability cannot arise.
3. Allegation is Prohibitive, Not Contractual
The allegation is “Parking in a No Parking Area”. This denotes a clear prohibition, not a contractual term. As per the reasoning in PCM v Bull (2016) [B4GF26K6], prohibitive signage cannot form the basis of a contract, as it offers no consideration or terms capable of acceptance. As no contract could have been formed, there can be no breach of contract and therefore no keeper liability under PoFA.
4. Failure to Identify the Creditor
The NtK uses the phrase “We, the creditor, require payment...” without identifying who “we” refers to. This is in breach of PoFA paragraph 9(2)(h), which requires that the notice must identify the creditor—meaning the specific legal entity to whom any liability would be owed. A generic and ambiguous reference that could be either the landowner, their agent or the operator is insufficient.
5. Postal Compliance and Proof of Service
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) was delivered on 22nd March 2025, Pursuant to PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e), you are required to provide “evidence of the actual date on which the notice entered the postal system”. I request that you provide that evidence, including whether the notice was posted via Royal Mail and on what date. Given the nature of hybrid mail systems, I reserve the right to challenge presumed service unless the necessary evidence is provided.
Breach of PPSCoP and KADOE Contract – DVLA Complaint
The deficiencies set out above confirm that this NtK does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Despite this, the notice contains a keeper liability warning under PoFA. This is a clear breach of the PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d), and thus also a breach of your KADOE contract with the DVLA.
Please note that I will be escalating this matter as a formal complaint to the DVLA, regardless of your decision to cancel or uphold the PCN, due to the misrepresentation of keeper liability and the non-compliance with mandatory requirements.
You are required to respond to this complaint in full. A failure to do so or a generic reply will be treated as further evidence of disregard for the Code of Practice and will be referenced in my DVLA complaint as well as a formal complaint to the BPA.
Yours faithfully,
[Full name]
Registered Keeper