Subject: Urgent: Regulatory Failures in Private Parking Industry and Complaint Handling Obstruction by the IPC
Dear [MP’s Name],
I am writing to raise serious concerns about regulatory failures within the private parking industry, specifically regarding SIP Parking Ltd and the International Parking Community (IPC), one of the two Accredited Trade Associations approved by the DVLA to regulate private parking firms.
On 15th March 2025, I submitted a formal complaint to SIP Parking Ltd regarding a parking charge issued in clear breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). Their conduct includes:• Falsely claiming that a Notice to Driver was affixed
• Misrepresenting the legal appeal period (offering only 21 days instead of the mandated 28)
• Issuing a charge for “No ticket displayed” in a ticketless car park
• Continuing to pursue payment despite evidence of a valid transaction
I then attempted to escalate my concerns to the IPC, as required. However, both the IPC's complaints page and contact form return a 404 error, making it impossible for the public to lodge a formal complaint. When I emailed their Data Protection Officer, I received a templated reply stating that emails would not be responded to, and I was again directed to the same broken web portal.
This is wholly unacceptable. The IPC appears to have no functioning complaints mechanism, which is deeply troubling given that it oversees companies handling sensitive DVLA-sourced personal data. I have now escalated the matter to both the DVLA and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), but I am also asking for your support in raising this in Parliament.
The private parking sector remains largely unregulated in practice. The DVLA entrusts bodies like the IPC with access to vehicle keeper data, but there is no transparency or accountability when operators behave unlawfully.
While the IPC's complaints system has now been restored, it is functionally unusable for meaningful complaint submission. Complainants are required to register an account, but the text box provided disables copy-and-paste functionality, prevents any formatting, and does not allow uploads. In other words, a complainant must manually type their entire complaint from scratch, unformatted, with no supporting documents. This appears to be a deliberate tactic to frustrate and deter complaints, effectively insulating member firms from oversight.
I would be grateful if you could raise this matter with the relevant Minister or parliamentary committee, and support calls for:• A formal review of the IPC’s status as an Accredited Trade Association;
• Stronger statutory oversight of private parking firms;
• A fully independent, statutory appeals and complaints body—free from industry influence.
Thank you for your time and support.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email]
[Constituency]
Subject: Complaint Regarding the International Parking Community (IPC) – Obstructed Access to Data Complaint Channels
Dear Information Commissioner,
I am submitting a formal complaint against the International Parking Community (IPC), a DVLA-accredited trade association for private parking operators, on the basis that they are obstructing the public’s ability to raise data protection concerns.
I recently submitted a formal complaint to one of their members, SIP Parking Ltd, for misusing my personal data after obtaining it through the DVLA's KADOE access. SIP Parking issued a non-compliant Notice to Keeper (NtK), misrepresented legal appeal rights, and pursued payment despite evidence of a valid transaction and a formal complaint.
When I attempted to escalate the matter to the IPC, I discovered that their entire complaints system is non-functional:• Their official complaints portal (https://portal.theipc.info/login/complaints) returns a 404 error
• Their contact form (https://theipc.info/contact-us) also returns a 404 error
• When I emailed their Data Protection Officer at dpo@theipc.info, I received a blanket refusal to respond to any messages sent to that address, with a redirection back to the same broken web pages
While the IPC’s complaints system has recently been restored, it is clearly designed to frustrate rather than facilitate meaningful engagement. It requires full registration including, unnecessarily, date of birth, disables copy-and-paste into the complaint form, allows no formatting, and provides no option to upload supporting documents such as PDFs or images. This obstructive design makes it extremely difficult for individuals to submit coherent or well-evidenced complaints. I believe this is a deliberate attempt to prevent complaints from being submitted or properly reviewed, and that it falls short of data subject rights under UK GDPR, particularly transparency and accessibility.
This is a systemic failure in the IPC’s responsibilities as a regulatory body. The IPC is entrusted with overseeing organisations that handle and process DVLA-sourced personal data, yet they have no functioning mechanism for the public to raise complaints or data protection concerns. This is unacceptable and arguably in breach of UK GDPR Article 38(4), which requires that data subjects can “consult the data protection officer on all issues related to processing of their personal data.”
I am asking the ICO to investigate:• Whether the IPC is in breach of its data protection obligations by failing to offer a working mechanism for complaint
• Whether their conduct is consistent with their role as a regulatory oversight body trusted with sensitive DVLA data access
• Whether any enforcement action is warranted
I am happy to provide evidence of the broken web pages, the complaint to SIP Parking Ltd, and the full correspondence with the IPC. Please let me know if further details are required.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Email]
To: dpo@theipc.info
Subject: Urgent: Formal Complaint – SIP Parking Ltd (IPC AOS Member) and Failure of IPC Complaints Process
Dear Data Protection Officer,
I am writing to submit a formal complaint against your AOS member, SIP Parking Ltd, and to raise a serious concern regarding the IPC’s broken complaints infrastructure.
Both the complaints page (https://theipc.info/complaints) and the contact form (https://theipc.info/contact-us) return a 404 error, making it impossible for members of the public to submit complaints or make legitimate contact. This not only obstructs transparency and accountability, but also raises serious data protection concerns, given the IPC’s role in overseeing operators who obtain and use personal data via DVLA KADOE access.
Please treat the following as a formal complaint regarding SIP Parking Ltd:QuoteSubject: Formal Complaint – SIP Parking Ltd (IPC AOS Member)
Dear IPC Compliance Team,
Re: Formal Complaint – SIP Parking Ltd (PCN Reference: [INSERT PCN NUMBER])
I am submitting a formal complaint regarding the conduct of SIP Parking Ltd, a member of your Approved Operator Scheme (AOS). The company has committed multiple serious breaches of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and continues to misuse personal data obtained via its DVLA KADOE access.
A detailed complaint was submitted to SIP on [Date], which they have failed to respond to. Instead, they have issued a further “Payment Overdue” letter dated 11th April, adding a £15 ‘overdue’ fee. This conduct is emblematic of a rogue operator, and I now expect the IPC to take appropriate enforcement action in line with its oversight responsibilities.
For the record, I have already submitted a formal complaint to the DVLA, as the operator’s conduct represents a clear misuse of data in breach of the KADOE contract. The DVLA remains the Data Controller for the personal data it supplies to AOS operators and is now investigating this matter.
SIP Parking Ltd has acted in flagrant violation of multiple sections of the PPSCoP, including but not limited to:• Section 8.4.1(a): Restricting the appeal period to 21 days (not the required minimum of 28).
• Section 6.3: Failing to carry out basic checks for possible keying errors before pursuing the charge.
• Section 8.1.2(e): Demanding payment within 28 days from posting instead of from receipt of the NtK.
• Section 11.2: Ignoring a formal complaint/appeal submitted by the Keeper.
• PoFA Schedule 4: Issuing a non-compliant NtK and pursuing the Keeper despite lacking lawful basis to do so.
• Misleading Reason for Charge: Issuing a PCN for “No ticket displayed” in a ticketless car park.
In addition, SIP Parking’s Notice to Keeper fails to identify which Accredited Trade Association it belongs to—a further breach of best practice, especially as the Keeper is then directed to appeal within 21 days via the IAS, in breach of PPSCoP rules.
Given the severity of these breaches, I now expect the IPC to launch a formal investigation into SIP Parking Ltd and confirm the steps it will take to bring its member into compliance. I also request that this complaint be added to the operator’s compliance record.
Furthermore, I must emphasise that if the IPC continues to ignore clear and repeated misconduct by its members, it will further erode public confidence in your organisation’s ability to regulate the private parking sector. As the oversight body responsible for ensuring member compliance with the Code, the IPC cannot simply turn a blind eye to behaviour that is demonstrably unlawful and predatory.
Please acknowledge receipt of this complaint and confirm that it will be formally investigated. I am happy to provide supporting documents upon request.
Yours faithfully,
[YOUR FULL NAME]
Registered Keeper
[DATE: 16 April 2025]
Please note that I will be reporting the IPC’s failure to maintain an accessible complaints process to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as a matter of concern, and I will also be contacting my MP to raise questions about the accountability and transparency of your organisation as a so-called ‘accredited’ trade body.
I expect confirmation of receipt and an explanation of how this complaint will be processed.
Yours sincerely,
[YOUR NAME]
[Your address, if required]
I am submitting a formal complaint against SIP Parking 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 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: SIP Parking Ltd
Date of PCN issue: 07/02/2025
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, SIP Parking Ltd has breached the PPSCoP in the following ways:• Falsely claimed that a Notice to Driver (NtD) was affixed to the vehicle, when none was present
• Imposed a 21-day appeal window instead of the mandatory 28-day minimum (PPSCoP 8.4.1(a))
• Issued a PCN for “No ticket displayed” despite operating a ticketless system
• Failed to investigate potential keying errors or check payment logs before issuing the NtK (PPSCoP 6.3)
• Attempted to demand payment within 28 days from the date of posting, not the date of receipt, in breach of PPSCoP 8.1.2(e)
• Sent a “Payment Overdue” letter while ignoring a formal complaint submitted on 15 March 2025
• Failed to identify the correct Accredited Trade Association (ATA) in their NtK
• Misused the DVLA data to pursue an invalid and non-PoFA compliant charge without lawful basis
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]
SIP Car Parks (1) Limited
Peter House
Oxford Street
Manchester
M1 5AN
By email to: info@sipcarparks.co.uk
[Date]
FORMAL COMPLAINT
PCN number: [PCN number from the NtK]
Dear Sirs,
This is a formal complaint from the Keeper of vehicle [VRM] and you are required to also treat it as an appeal as per the BPA/IPC Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section 11.2.
False Claim That a Notice to Driver (NtD) Was Affixed
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) falsely claims that a Notice to Driver (NtD) was affixed to the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. This is patently false. The driver has confirmed that no such notice was found on the vehicle. Given the well-documented practices of unscrupulous operators like yours in this industry, I put it to you that your operative either failed to place an NtD at all or removed it after taking a staged photograph, thereby deliberately denying the driver the opportunity to appeal within the reduced charge period. If you maintain that an NtD was affixed, then I require timestamped, unedited photographs clearly showing the NtD attached to the vehicle, including wide-angle images that confirm both its presence and the vehicle’s surroundings. Failure to provide this evidence will confirm my position that your operative acted dishonestly, further highlighting your company's already dismal conduct.
Deliberate Misrepresentation of Appeal Rights – Unlawful Conduct
Your NtK states that the driver had 21 days to appeal. This is an outright falsehood and a blatant breach of the PPSCoP Section 8.4.1(a), which mandates a minimum of 28 days to appeal. By deliberately misrepresenting the appeal period, you have invalidated the entire PCN, rendering it null and void. More critically, this breach means you have also violated your Keeper At Date Of Event (KADOE) contract with the DVLA. My follow-up complaint to the DVLA will highlight your total disregard for both the DVLA’s requirements and the conditions under which you are permitted to access Keeper data. Your unlawful actions must be thoroughly investigated, and I will be requesting that the DVLA withdraw your access to Keeper data for gross non-compliance with your contractual obligations.
Unlawful Use of My Data – Breach of GDPR
As your processing of Keeper data was unlawful—due to your non-compliance with the PPSCoP and KADOE contract—you are in direct breach of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). As you have obtained and used my personal data unlawfully, you are now liable for a claim for compensation under data protection law. I will be reporting this to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Furthermore, should you attempt to litigate any enforcement action against me based on this unlawful PCN, I will file a Part 21 counterclaim against you for a GDPR breach, seeking damages for your misuse of my personal data. If you want to be so foolish as to take this all the way to court knowing that your position is completely indefensible, then you do so at your own risk. You will not only lose but will be met with a counterclaim that will ensure you suffer financial consequences for your unlawful actions.
PCN Issued for "No Ticket Displayed" in a Ticketless Car Park
If your intellectually malnourished operative believed that no payment had been made against the VRM, then they should have stated exactly that on the PCN. However, your NtK shows that they didn't. Instead, proving their incompetence, they have simply written "No ticket displayed"—which is not a contravention of any terms and conditions. Your own signage explicitly states that no ticket or permit is required to be displayed when payment is made, yet your, so called operative, has issued a charge on that basis.
If the actual issue was that no payment was matched to the VRM, then that should have been clearly stated. The fact that it wasn’t means one of two things: either your operative was too mentally impaired to understand the basic requirements of their job, or this is yet another example of your company’s well known practice of issuing unlawful charges in the hope that the recipient won’t challenge it.
Furthermore, if there was a minor keying error when the driver entered their VRM, it was your responsibility to check your own payment logs before issuing the Notice to Keeper. But, as expected, SIPs incompetence shines through once again. Rather than performing even the most basic level of due diligence, you have instead ploughed ahead with a charge that is demonstrably invalid.
This blatant breach of the PPSCoP proves once again that SIP has failed to comply with the standards required. Section 6.3 of the PPSCoP states:"6.3. Keying errors
Where the terms and conditions require the driver to supply their vehicle registration mark at an on-site machine, by telephone or online, the parking operator must have and follow a documented policy and procedure to avoid issuing or enforcing a parking charge in respect of accidental keying errors. This should include the adoption of technologies that reduce keying errors."
As the driver has evidence that payment was made, meaning your PCN is not only baseless but also a clear abuse of the DVLA data access you have been granted, I require you to provide suitably redacted copies of your payment logs for this car park for the period of parking, assuming you have a period of parking to refer to, another requirement for PoFA compliance.
No Keeper Liability as Notices are not PoFA Compliant
Without having been able to review the NtD for PoFA compliance, I am confident that it is not and most likely is in breach of paragraph 7(2)(a) and your copy of that NtD which you are now required to provide, will prove my point. As your NtK also does not fully comply with all the requirement of PoFA, you are unable to hold me, Keeper, liable and I will not be providing you, an unregulated private company, the drivers details as I am under no legal obligation to do so.
Failure to Comply with PPSCoP Regarding Payment Deadlines
The NtK states:"If payment is not received within 28 days beginning with the day after the date of sending this notice, additional admin charges or overdue fees up to the value of £60..."
This is yet another direct breach of the PPSCoP. Section 8.1.2(e) states that the 28-day period must begin from the date the notice is 'received', not from the day after it is sent. Your NtK is therefore invalid on this basis alone. I now require you to provide evidence of the date the NtK was actually entered into the postal system as required by the PPSCoP section 8.1.2(e) Note 2. The relevant point being:"parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)"
Required Action
To resolve this complaint, I require the following:1. A copy of the Notice to Driver (NtD) that was allegedly affixed to the vehicle.
2. Full evidential photos of the vehicle showing the alleged contravention, including timestamped images proving the presence of an NtD and unedited metadata proving no tampering.
3. A full payment log, redacted only as necessary for data protection requirements, from the date and time in question that the vehicle was on site, including any transactions that closely match the VRM, to rule out a keying error.
4. An explanation as to why the appeal period was unlawfully restricted to 21 days, contrary to the PPSCoP.
5. An explanation as to why a PCN was issued for "No ticket displayed" when your own signage states there is no requirement to display a ticket.
6. An explanation as to why the NtK states that payment is required within 28 days of sending rather than receipt, in direct contradiction of the PPSCoP.
7. An explanation as to why no checks were made for possible minor keying errors before the NtK was sent.
8. Evidence of the actual date the NtK was entered into the postal system.
9. A clear explanation of who you are pursuing, the driver or the keeper and on what basis
This formal complaint is made in accordance with Section 11.2 of the PPSCoP, which requires operators to treat complaints as appeals if they relate to a parking charge. I expect a substantive response within 14 days.
Should you fail to address this complaint appropriately, I will be taking the following actions:• Escalating a complaint to the DVLA, highlighting your disregard for the PPSCoP and KADOE contract.
• Reporting you to the ICO for unlawful processing of my personal data in breach of GDPR.
• Filing a Part 21 counterclaim for GDPR breaches if you attempt to pursue any enforcement action.
• Escalating a complaint to the IPC, although given their track record of siding with operators, I have no expectation of genuine scrutiny from them.
You are now on notice that I will not tolerate the misuse of my data for an unlawful charge. Consider this your formal warning.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
Registered Keeper