How embarrassing (legally) that this firm can expose their utter incompetence this way. Their nonsense email means:
1. Their “signed statement” requirement is invented.
PoFA contains no provision requiring:
• a signed witness statement
• a signed declaration
• a completed portal form
• or any specific format
It requires only:
• “the name of the driver and a current address for service”.
You already provided that to the data controller (Countrywide) in early April. Countrywide acknowledged receipt on 15 April.
2. BW Legal cannot retrospectively impose a condition which PoFA does not require.
They claim the NtK was PoFA compliant because it was “issued within 14 days”. This is a red flag highlighting they don’t understand PoFA at all. PoFA requires it to be "given", not "issued" within the relevant period.
Irrespective, timing is only one requirement of the NtK. If any of the mandatory 9(2) wording is missing or wrong, keeper liability does not arise, regardless of timing.
You already know that their NtK has multiple 9(2) failures.
3. The harassment paragraph is posturing.
You did not accuse them of civil harassment. You stated they are unlawfully processing your data.
They are trying to intimidate you with a statute you haven’t even relied on. Their reference to legitimate interests does not save them:
• pursuing the wrong person is not a legitimate interest
• legitimate interests must be proportionate and necessary, which this is not
• legitimate interests cannot continue once the purpose is unlawful
Continued processing in the face of:
• a valid transfer of liability
• PoFA non-compliance
• contradictory BW Legal correspondence
is unlawful data processing, regardless of their posturing.
4. Their competing workflows (collections vs. “TOL”) are causing the problem.
You already have a BW Legal email confirming:
• “the issue has been resolved”
• “no further action is required”
They cannot now deny that. This contradiction is gold dust.
Email the following to BW Legal and CC Countrywide:
Subject: Your email dated [insert date] – PoFA, timing and unlawful processing
Dear BW Legal,
I refer to your recent email in which you state that the Notice to Keeper was “issued within 14 days” and therefore “PoFA compliant”, and in which you again demand a signed statement to transfer liability.
First, your understanding of PoFA timing is embarrassingly wrong. Schedule 4 paragraph 9(4) requires that a Notice to Keeper sent by post must be "given" so that it is delivered not later than 14 days beginning with the day after the parking event. Paragraph 9(6) then states that a notice sent by post is deemed to have been given on the second working day after posting. In other words, it is not enough that the NtK is “issued within 14 days”. It must be issued early enough that, allowing for the two working day deemed service rule, it is deemed given within that 14 day period. Simply being “issued within 14 days” is legally meaningless unless the deemed date of service still falls within the 14 days.
Second, the full name and address for service of the driver were provided to your client, Countrywide Parking Management, on 9 April. Your client acknowledged receipt on 15 April. Schedule 4 does not require a signed statement, a declaration, the use of a web portal or any other invented process. It requires only that the keeper gives the name and a current address for service of the driver before proceedings. I have complied. Your client has acknowledged that I have complied. Your insistence on a signed statement is a requirement of your own making and has no basis in the statute.
Third, your client’s NtK fails multiple mandatory requirements of PoFA paragraph 9(2) in any event, so it is incapable of creating keeper liability even if the driver had never been named. You are therefore wrong in law to assert that your client is “legally entitled to pursue” me as keeper.
You also suggest that references in your own correspondence to matters being “resolved” or that “no further action is required” only apply to “separate contacts” and not to the underlying account. That simply underlines the problem. Different parts of BW Legal are issuing contradictory communications. One team tells me the issue is resolved and no further action is required; another continues to send demands and repeats the same requests for information that has already been provided. This demonstrates that your internal workflows and data are not synchronised and that you are not processing my personal data with the accuracy and care that data protection law requires.
Your long passage about the Protection from Harassment Act and legitimate interests is a distraction. My primary complaint is that you are continuing to process my personal data for enforcement purposes when (a) the driver’s details have been supplied and acknowledged, and (b) the NtKs do not comply with PoFA. There is no legitimate interest in pursuing a person who is not liable, and no lawful basis for continued enforcement processing against the keeper in those circumstances.
I now require written confirmation within 7 days that your records have been updated to show the named driver already provided, that all processing of my personal data for enforcement purposes has ceased, and that my data has been removed from your active systems. If you continue to pursue me as registered keeper, or continue to demand re-submission of information already supplied and acknowledged, I will escalate this to the ICO and DVLA, and I will consider a claim under section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018 for distress arising from unlawful processing.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
[Your address]
[Date]
Respond with the following:
Subject: Repeated request for driver details – liability already transferred
Dear BW Legal,
Your email of 4 October 2025 repeats a request I have already satisfied.
On 9 April 2025 I provided your client, Countrywide Parking Management, with the driver’s full name and address for service:
Name: [FULL NAME]
Address: The Collective, Nash House, Old Oak Lane, London NW10 6FF
Email: [EMAIL]
Phone: [PHONE]
Countrywide acknowledged my correspondence on 15 April 2025 and confirmed they would action the transfer. On 11 August 2025 your own email stated “the issue has been resolved” and “no further action is required from you at this time”.
PoFA Schedule 4 requires only that the keeper provides the name and a current address for service of the driver before proceedings. It does not require a signed statement, a portal submission, or any particular form. I have complied. Any assertion that you or your client are “legally entitled” to pursue me as keeper is wrong in law. In any event, your client’s NtK was not compliant with PoFA.
Furthermore, I must highlight that different departments within BW Legal appear to be working at cross-purposes.
On 11 August 2025, your email stated that “the issue has been resolved” and “no further action is required”. Despite this, a separate team continues to send automated demands and duplicate requests for the same information. This demonstrates a lack of internal communication and oversight, resulting in contradictory correspondence and unnecessary processing of my personal data.
Please ensure your internal workflows are synchronised and that all departments are aware that liability has already been transferred.
You must now update your file to reflect that keeper liability is extinguished and cease processing my personal data for enforcement. There is no lawful basis for continued processing against me; reliance on “legitimate interests” fails where the target is not liable.
Confirm in writing within 7 days that:
1. your records have been updated to the named driver shown above,
2. all processing of my personal data for enforcement has ceased and my data has been removed from your active systems,
3. you have advised your client accordingly.
If you continue to contact me about payment or threaten recovery as keeper, I will escalate complaints to the ICO and DVLA and I will consider a claim under section 168 DPA 2018 for distress arising from unlawful processing. Further duplicate requests for the same information will be treated as harassment and misuse of data.
Additionally, should you continue to pursue me as keeper despite having the driver’s details and despite your conflicting internal communications, I will refer this matter to the SRA for potential breaches of the Standards and Regulations (misleading communications, failure to supervise, and improper reliance on PoFA), and to the FCA regarding your debt-collection practices.
Unless you are sending a compliant Letter of Claim to which I will respond in due course, do not contact me again save to confirm closure.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
[Your address]
[Date]
Yes — that’s exactly what it looks like. You’ve essentially got two separate BW Legal workflows operating in parallel:
• Collections/Litigation workflow – the one that sent you the Final Demand and threatened escalation to a Letter of Claim.
• “Liability Transfer” workflow – the one that just emailed you saying the matter is “resolved” but still asked for the driver’s details again.
This mismatch happens because BW Legal operates in silos: one team is chasing payment, the other is processing “not the driver” declarations, and they don’t always update each other’s systems in real time.
This is good for you because if they ever tried to issue a claim now, you would be able to point to:
• BW Legal’s own written statement that “the issue has been resolved” and “no further action is required” (this is gold — it undermines any claim that a debt is still owed).
• The fact you already gave the driver’s details back on 9 April 2025 — meaning PoFA liability was extinguished.
• The conflicting correspondence as evidence of unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
I suggest you preserve both:
• The “Final Demand” dated 16 June 2025, and
• The 11 August 2025 “issue has been resolved” email.
You can send one short, response to BW Legal, referencing both communications and asking for written confirmation that all processing of your personal data is ceased.
Subject: Confirmation of Case Closure – Conflicting Correspondence
Dear BW Legal,
I note your email dated 11 August 2025 stating:
“As the issue has been resolved, no further action is required from you at this time.”
This directly contradicts your earlier “Final Demand” dated 16 June 2025 threatening escalation to a Letter of Claim.
For clarity: I provided the full name and serviceable address of the driver to your client, Countrywide Parking Management Limited, on 9 April 2025. Under Paragraph 5(1)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, any right to recover these charges from me as registered keeper has ceased.
Please now confirm, in writing, that:
• My personal data has been removed from your systems under Article 17 UK GDPR.
• Neither you nor your client will pursue me for this matter in future.
• I will retain your email of 11 August 2025 as evidence should this matter be escalated further.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Reply with:
Subject: Final Notice – Failure to Respond to Erasure Request and Continued Unlawful Processing
Dear BW Legal,
Your email dated 16 July 2025 is noted. It is legally and procedurally deficient.
You have already been provided with:
• The BW Legal reference number
• The client reference
• The full name and address for service of the driver
• Multiple formal notices asserting extinguishment of keeper liability
Your failure to respond substantively to my erasure request dated 27 June 2025 constitutes a breach of UK GDPR Article 17, which requires a response within one calendar month. That deadline expired on 27 July 2025.
You are now formally placed on notice that unless I receive written confirmation by 5:00pm on Friday 1 August 2025 that:
• All processing of my personal data has ceased;
• My data has been erased under Article 17 UK GDPR;
• No further enforcement action will be directed at me as keeper;
I will escalate formal complaints to:
• The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for unlawful processing and failure to comply with an erasure request;
• The DVLA for misuse of keeper data;
• The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for professional misconduct;
• And, if necessary, commence a County Court claim under Section 168 DPA 2018 for compensation for distress.
Your continued pursuit is legally baseless and exposes you to regulatory and civil liability.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Reference Number]
In which case respond with the following:
Subject: Unlawful Processing Continues – Final Demand Received Despite Liability Being Transferred
Dear BW Legal,
I refer to your “Final Demand” letter dated 16 June 2025 regarding the above matter.
This letter was received despite your ongoing failure to respond to my prior correspondence, in which I clearly advised that the name and address for service of the driver were provided to your client before any legal proceedings were initiated. Under Paragraph 5(1)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, your client is no longer entitled to recover the parking charges from me as registered keeper.
This letter now serves as final notice that your continued pursuit of me is unlawful. You are processing my personal data without a lawful basis, in breach of:
• Article 6(1) UK GDPR (no lawful basis for processing)
• Article 5(1)(a) and (c) (lawfulness, fairness, and data minimisation)
• Section 168 Data Protection Act 2018 (liability for distress caused by misuse)
You are also now placed on notice that the original Notice to Keeper issued by your client was non-compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in multiple respects, which would invalidate any attempt to rely on PoFA to transfer liability in the first place.
Should you or your client continue to pursue me as Keeper for a liability that has been extinguished, I will have no option but to escalate a formal complaint to:
• The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for unlawful processing of personal data;
• The DVLA, whose data has been misused;
• And, if necessary, I will issue a County Court claim under s.168 DPA 2018.
A copy of your client’s acknowledgement of receipt of the named driver’s details will be relied upon in evidence in any such proceedings.
I require written confirmation by 5:00pm on Friday 5 July 2025 that this matter is closed and that my data will be erased from your systems under Article 17 UK GDPR.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Respond with the following:
To: disputeresolution@bwlegal.co.uk
Cc: complaints@countrywideparking.co.uk; support@countrywideparking.zendesk.com
Subject: Formal Notice – Liability Extinguished – Unlawful Pursuit and Data Breach Warning
Dear BW Legal,
I write in response to your email dated 17 April 2025 and your letter dated 22 April 2025.
Your position is entirely incorrect. I have already provided your client, Countrywide Parking Management, with the full name and address for service of the driver prior to any legal proceedings being issued. Your client has acknowledged receipt of this information. Under Schedule 4, Paragraph 5(1)(b) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, this extinguished any keeper liability.
There is no requirement under PoFA for the keeper to submit a signed statement or to use any online portal to transfer liability. Providing the name and address in writing to the creditor is sufficient to comply with the law. Your demand for a signed statement has no legal basis.
In any event, your client's Notice to Keeper was non-compliant with PoFA and incapable of transferring keeper liability even if the driver had not been named.
You and your client have been placed on notice that pursuing me as the registered keeper after a valid transfer of liability constitutes unlawful processing of personal data, contrary to:
• Article 5(1)(a) of the UK GDPR (no lawful basis for processing)
• Article 5(1)(c) and (e) (data minimisation and storage limitation)
• Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (distress caused by misuse of data)
Your reference to "legitimate interest" under GDPR is misconceived and legally embarrassing. There is no legitimate interest in pursuing a party who is not liable. Continuing to process my personal data in these circumstances is unlawful.
You are now formally put on notice that unless I receive confirmation within 7 days that:
1. All processing of my personal data has ceased;
2. No further enforcement action will be directed at me as registered keeper; and
3. This matter has been correctly reassigned to the named driver,
I will escalate formal complaints to the DVLA, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and, if necessary, commence a claim under Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018 for compensation for distress arising from your unlawful processing.
You are also warned that adding £140 in purported "debt recovery costs" is a clear attempt to inflate the original charge, contrary to established consumer protection law principles.
All correspondence is retained and will be used in evidence should it become necessary.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Date]
Respond as follows:
Subject: Final Notice – Transfer of Liability Provided – Continued Misuse of Keeper Data
Dear Countrywide Parking Management,
I refer to your response dated 17 April 2025 in which you refuse to action the transfer of liability on the grounds that the address provided for the driver is “not a serviceable address”. That is legally incorrect and your position is now untenable.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have provided the full name and the most accurate address for service I hold for the driver. This was provided in writing before any legal proceedings were issued. This satisfies my obligation under Schedule 4, Paragraph 5(1)(b) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. You are no longer entitled to pursue the registered keeper.
PoFA does not require the keeper to use a specific website or appeal portal, nor does it require that the address be validated or proven beyond what the keeper reasonably knows. Your refusal to accept the driver’s details on the grounds that I have not used your online form is procedurally invalid and appears to be a deliberate attempt to frustrate the legal transfer of liability.
Further, your Notice to Keeper fails to comply with multiple requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA, meaning you cannot in any event rely on PoFA to hold the keeper liable.
Your continued processing of my personal data for enforcement purposes is now unlawful. You are in breach of:
• Article 5(1)(a) of the UK GDPR (no lawful basis for processing);
• Article 5(1)(c) and (e) (data minimisation and retention);
• Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (distress caused by misuse of personal data).
You are now given final notice that, unless I receive written confirmation within 7 days that:
1. All processing of my data has ceased; and
2. No further correspondence will be directed to me as keeper,
I will escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office and the DVLA as a formal complaint regarding unlawful processing and misuse of keeper data obtained from the vehicle register.
This correspondence is retained and will be used in evidence in any proceedings.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
Email the following to Countrywide at their response email address with BW Legal copied in (and yourself), setting out the legal position and warning of escalation to the DVLA and ICO due to their continued breaches of PoFA, UK GDPR, and the Data Protection Act 2018.
To: support@countrywideparking.zendesk.com
Cc: disputeresolution@bwlegal.co.uk; complaints@countrywideparking.co.uk
Subject: Formal Notice – Continued Breaches of PoFA, GDPR and DPA 2018 – Notice of Imminent Escalation
Dear Countrywide Parking Management,
I acknowledge your most recent reply of 14 April 2025.
You have now received, in writing, the full name and current address for service of the driver responsible for the alleged parking charge. This information was provided to you before any court proceedings were issued, and therefore satisfies the conditions under Paragraph 5(1)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Your claim that this transfer of liability is invalid because the matter had already been passed to debt recovery is legally incorrect. Passing a case to a debt recovery agent does not constitute “proceedings” under PoFA. You remain the data controller, and you are still legally obligated to act on the information you received from the keeper. Your repeated refusal to do so constitutes a continued breach of your statutory duties.
Your conduct now breaches the following legal obligations:
• Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, by unlawfully continuing to pursue the registered keeper despite a valid transfer of liability
• Article 5(1)(a) of the UK GDPR, by processing personal data without a lawful basis
• Article 5(1)(c) and (e), by retaining and using unnecessary personal data beyond the point of legal justification
• Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018, by causing unjustified distress through misuse of personal data
You are also knowingly directing a legal firm, BW Legal, to act on unenforceable instructions in pursuit of a party who is no longer liable. BW Legal has now been made fully aware of this position and of your refusal to acknowledge the lawful transfer of liability.
Unless you confirm within 7 days that:
1. All further processing of the keeper’s personal data has ceased,
2. BW Legal has been instructed to stop all contact with the keeper, and
3. Liability has been correctly reassigned to the named driver,
I will escalate this matter without further notice to both the Information Commissioner’s Office and the DVLA as a formal complaint regarding misuse of personal data obtained from the vehicle register.
This situation is entirely of your own making. You have been given multiple opportunities to comply with the law and have instead chosen to deflect responsibility while continuing to process data unlawfully. All correspondence and responses are retained and will be used as evidence.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email]
[Date]
Respond to that with the following to complaints@countrywideparking.co.uk and CC in BW Legal at disputeresolution@bwlegal.co.uk and yourself:
Subject: Notice to Keeper – Liability Extinguished – PoFA and Data Protection Act 2018
Dear Countrywide Parking Management,
Further to your response dated 10 April 2025, I confirm that I have now provided you with the full name and address for service of the driver in accordance with Schedule 4, Paragraph 5(1)(b) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This was done before any court proceedings were issued, which means that liability has lawfully transferred and you may no longer pursue the registered keeper for this charge.
Passing the matter to BW Legal or any third party does not constitute legal proceedings within the meaning of Paragraph 5(2), and does not alter the statutory position. You remain the data controller and are responsible for complying with your obligations under both PoFA and data protection law.
Continuing to process my personal data for the purpose of enforcement, now that you are no longer entitled to pursue me, is in breach of the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. In particular, it breaches the following principles under Article 5(1) UK GDPR:
(a) Lawfulness, fairness and transparency – you no longer have a lawful basis to process my data;
(c) Data minimisation – you are continuing to process data that is no longer necessary;
(e) Storage limitation – you are retaining my data beyond the point where it is lawfully required.
In addition, your continued processing would now amount to unlawful profiling or automated decision-making in breach of Article 22 UK GDPR.
Any further use of my personal data in relation to this charge may result in a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and a claim for compensation under Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018, which allows a data subject to recover damages for distress caused by unlawful processing.
You are now required to delete my personal data from your enforcement systems and to confirm in writing that all further processing has ceased. The data subject in this case is no longer the registered keeper, but the named driver.
If the person reading this does not fully understand the legal basis for this response, or does not comprehend the risks of continuing to process my data unlawfully, then you are strongly advised to escalate this to your company’s Data Protection Officer or whoever is responsible for ensuring legal and data compliance. You should also refer this matter to your legal advisors if necessary. Continuing to ignore or misapply the law at this stage may result in a regulatory complaint and a legal claim for damages under Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
You can also send the following to BW Legal at disputeresolution@bwlegal.co.uk and CC in Countrywide at complaints@countrywideparking.co.uk and also CC in yourself:
Subject: Notice – Unlawful Processing and Failure to Advise Client of Keeper Liability Extinguishment
Dear BW Legal,
I am writing in relation to your involvement in the recovery of a parking charge issued by your client, Countrywide Parking Management. You are currently acting in the role of debt recovery agent, and your client is the data controller.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but I am not liable for the charge. Prior to any court proceedings being issued, I provided your client with the full name and current address for service of the driver. This satisfies the requirement under Paragraph 5(1)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The legal consequence of this is that your client is no longer entitled to pursue the keeper, and any enforcement must now be directed solely at the identified driver.
Your client has refused to acknowledge this transfer of liability and has attempted to refer me to your firm instead. As a firm of legal professionals, you are under a duty to advise your client of the statutory position and the consequences of disregarding it. You are now aware that your client has received valid driver details before proceedings were issued, and that continued pursuit of the registered keeper is unlawful.
If you continue to process or act upon my personal data for enforcement purposes despite knowing that I am not liable, you will be in breach of the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. You will have no lawful basis for such processing, and the breach will fall squarely on you as a data processor or joint controller.
The relevant UK GDPR principles being breached or at risk of breach include:
• Article 5(1)(a) – lawfulness, fairness and transparency
• Article 5(1)(c) – data minimisation
• Article 5(1)(e) – storage limitation
You are now formally notified that:
1. Your client is acting unlawfully in continuing to pursue the keeper,
2. You have a professional responsibility to advise them of their legal error,
3. Any further processing of my personal data by you or your client for enforcement purposes will be treated as a data breach,
4. All relevant correspondence, including my prior notification to your client, has been retained and will be used in evidence in any proceedings or complaints.
I suggest you bring this matter to your client’s immediate attention and confirm to me within 14 days that no further contact will be made with the keeper and that all processing of my personal data has ceased.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Date]
While I understand your reasoning, an email address is not considered an adequate “address for service” under PoFA, even though paragraph 2(1)(b) refers to “an address at which the driver for the time being resides or can conveniently be contacted.”
In legal terms, the word “address” means a physical, postal address, unless the law clearly says otherwise. PoFA does not mention email anywhere and only provides rules for when a notice sent by post is considered “given.” There are no rules or legal presumptions about service or receipt by email.
The phrase “can conveniently be contacted” just widens the scope of valid postal addresses. For example, if the driver doesn’t live at their home address but can reliably receive post at a workplace, second home, or a family member’s house, that would usually be accepted. But it still has to be a place where mail can physically be delivered.
Unless the driver has explicitly agreed in writing to accept legal notices by email, providing only an email address is not enough to meet the requirements of PoFA. The parking company is therefore entitled to continue pursuing you as the keeper.
To transfer liability under PoFA, you must provide:
• The name of the driver, and
• A valid postal address for service.
If you don’t know a postal address, it’s best to say so clearly, but understand that this likely means you will remain liable under PoFA. But... as the NtK is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA, you cannot be liable as the Keeper.
I suggest you send the following to Countrywide and see where it goes from there:
Dear [Creditor's Name],
Re: Parking Charge Notice [Reference Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Registration Number]
I am writing in response to the above Parking Charge Notice, issued to me as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
I was not the driver at the time of the alleged parking event. In accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, I am providing the name of the driver and the only contact information I hold for them:
Driver’s Name: [Full Name]
Email Address: [Email Address]
I do not hold a current postal address for the driver. This information is provided in good faith and to the best of my knowledge.
I would also point out that the Notice to Keeper you issued does not fully comply with all the requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA, and as such, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver or accept any liability. Nonetheless, I am voluntarily providing the above details to assist you and enable you to pursue the matter directly with the individual you claim to be liable.
Please update your records accordingly and direct any further correspondence regarding this matter to the named individual. I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing whether you now consider that liability for this parking charge has been transferred from me as the registered keeper to the identified driver.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Postal Address]
[Date]