Apologies, I hadn't noticed the reply.
Volkswagen Financial Services (VWFS) has now confirmed three important things:
1. They agree that your lease agreement is a "hire agreement" as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4 Paragraph 13. This means they know that they can legally transfer liability for a private parking charge to you as the hirer if they provide the right documents.
2. However, they also admit that their policy is to refuse to provide those documents (the hire agreement), even though doing so would allow them to legally pass the charge to you and avoid being held liable themselves. Because they choose not to do this, they say they won’t rely on PoFA at all. In effect, they are intentionally blocking the use of a legal process that protects customers like you.
3. Despite not complying with PoFA, they still pass on your personal details to the private parking company. Then, if the charge escalates, they just pay it and invoice you. This means your personal data is being shared even though there’s no valid legal basis to hold you liable. They justify this by saying their privacy policy explains it, but that doesn’t make the data sharing lawful under UK data protection law.
In short, VWFS admits it could legally transfer liability to you using PoFA, but chooses not to. They still hand over your data to a private parking firm, even though that firm has no legal right to pursue you unless PoFA has been complied with. Then VWFS either leaves you to deal with it or pays and charges you. This approach puts you at risk of being unlawfully pursued for a parking charge when the law was designed to protect you from exactly that situation.
Here is what you should now do...
First a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman. You can send it by email to complaint.info@financial-ombudsman.org.uk and make sure you also CC yourself:
Subject: Complaint Regarding Volkswagen Financial Services – Ref: FLE-747262
Dear Financial Ombudsman Service,
I am submitting a complaint against Volkswagen Financial Services UK Ltd (trading as SEAT Financial Services) regarding their handling of a parking charge issued while I was the hirer of a leased vehicle.
The company has confirmed in writing that my agreement is a “hire agreement” under Schedule 4 Paragraph 13 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). This means they have the legal ability to transfer liability for a private parking charge to me by providing the required documents to the parking operator.
However, Volkswagen Financial Services also admitted that they have a policy of refusing to provide a copy of the hire agreement to private parking companies. Because of this refusal, they knowingly choose not to rely on the PoFA process and therefore do not legally transfer liability. Despite this, they pass my personal data to the parking company anyway, or pay the charge themselves and then invoice me.
In other words, they choose not to follow the legal process that protects customers and still leave me exposed to liability for a charge that, under PoFA, I may not legally owe. This is unfair and potentially unlawful. I was never given the opportunity to contest the charge properly under the statutory process because they refused to provide the necessary documentation.
I believe this practice is unfair, unreasonable, and not in line with FCA expectations or principles. I am asking the Financial Ombudsman to investigate whether Volkswagen Financial Services’ policy of refusing to provide hire agreements in these cases is acceptable, and whether I have been treated fairly.
Please find below the relevant reference details:
• Complaint reference from VWFS: FLE-747262
• Vehicle registration: [Insert registration]
• Agreement number with VWFS: [Insert agreement number]
• My full name: [Insert full name]
• My contact details: [Insert email and/or phone number]
Please let me know if you require any further information or supporting documents.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
Second, you send the following to the BVRLA at info@bvrla.co.uk and again, CC yourself:
Subject: Complaint Regarding Volkswagen Financial Services – Unfair Treatment of Hirers in Relation to Private Parking Charges
Dear BVRLA,
I wish to submit a formal complaint against Volkswagen Financial Services UK Ltd, a member of your organisation, in relation to their handling of private parking charge notices issued to vehicles leased under hire agreements.
VWFS has confirmed to me in writing that my lease agreement is a “hire agreement” for the purposes of Schedule 4 Paragraph 13 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). This means they have the legal ability to transfer liability for a private parking charge to the hirer by providing the necessary documentation to the parking operator.
However, they also confirmed that their internal policy is to refuse to provide a copy of the hire agreement to private parking companies. Because of this, they do not rely on PoFA to transfer liability, despite admitting that they could. Instead, they pass on the hirer’s details anyway, and if the parking charge escalates, they may pay it and invoice the customer.
This practice leaves the hirer exposed to enforcement action by private parking operators even when no legal liability has been transferred. It denies the hirer the opportunity to benefit from the protections provided by PoFA and increases the risk of unfair pursuit and financial loss.
I believe this approach is unacceptable for a BVRLA member. It contradicts the principle of treating customers fairly and creates a serious imbalance in the rights and responsibilities between lease companies and hirers.
I am therefore asking the BVRLA to investigate whether this policy breaches your Code of Conduct, and whether Volkswagen Financial Services’ handling of private parking charge notices is compatible with the standards expected of a member organisation.
Please let me know if you require any further information. I am happy to provide the relevant correspondence from VWFS on request.
Yours faithfully,
[Your full name]
[Your contact details]
[Vehicle registration and/or agreement number, if needed]
VWFS complaint ref: FLE-747262
Third, a complaint to the ICO at casework@ico.org.uk and again, CC yourself:
Subject: Data Protection Complaint – Volkswagen Financial Services (VWFS) – Unlawful Disclosure of Personal Data to Private Parking Operator
Dear ICO,
I wish to raise a concern about Volkswagen Financial Services UK Ltd (VWFS), who I believe have unlawfully disclosed my personal data to a private parking company without a valid lawful basis, in breach of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018.
I am the hirer of a vehicle leased under a hire agreement with VWFS. A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued against the vehicle by a private parking company. VWFS, as the registered keeper, disclosed my personal details to that company in order to pass liability to me.
However, Schedule 4 Paragraph 13 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) sets out the only lawful basis for transferring liability from the keeper to the hirer in these cases. VWFS has confirmed in writing that my agreement is a “hire agreement” under that legislation, but they also admitted that they have a company policy of refusing to provide the required documentation (namely, the hire agreement) to parking operators.
As a result, they are knowingly refusing to meet the legal conditions required to transfer liability, yet they are still disclosing my data to third parties as if those conditions have been met. This makes the data disclosure unlawful, as it is not necessary or proportionate for the stated purpose, and is not supported by a valid lawful basis under Article 6 of UK GDPR. Once they have decided not to rely on PoFA, there is no remaining lawful reason to share my personal data.
I believe VWFS’s policy and actions amount to a misuse of personal data and a failure to comply with the data minimisation, purpose limitation and lawfulness principles under UK GDPR.
I would be grateful if the ICO would investigate whether VWFS has breached data protection law in this case and whether their general policy of refusing to comply with PoFA, while still disclosing hirer data, is compatible with their obligations as a data controller.
Please let me know if you require further information. I can provide a copy of their written admissions on request.
Yours faithfully,
[Your full name]
[Your contact details]
[Vehicle registration and/or agreement number, if needed]
VWFS complaint ref: FLE-747262
Before you escalate this to the FCA and the BVRLA, I suggest the following response to that complaint response:
Subject: Clarification Requested: “Finance Agreement” vs “Hire Agreement” under PoFA – Complaint Ref: FLE-747262
Dear Jane Yaull,
Thank you for your final response to my complaint, reference FLE-747262.
I would like to request urgent clarification on one specific point before I consider escalation. In your response, you state:
“Our company policy does not permit us to share a copy of your finance agreement with private parking companies.”
Please confirm whether your reference to “finance agreement” refers to the hire agreement as defined in Paragraph 13(2)(b) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
As you are aware, PoFA requires the registered keeper (in this case, VWFS) to supply a copy of the hire agreement to the operator in order to lawfully transfer liability for a Parking Charge Notice. If your company’s policy is to refuse to provide the required documentation, then that policy is actively preventing PoFA compliance, and in effect denying customers the legal protections afforded to them under statute.
This raises serious concerns, especially if VWFS:
• Discloses hirer data to private operators (which is only lawful if PoFA requirements are met); and
• Then refuses to provide the very document that would lawfully transfer liability and protect the customer from being wrongfully pursued.
As your organisation is listed as a BVRLA member, I will also be seeking clarity from the BVRLA on whether your stated policy complies with the BVRLA’s own standards and guidance in relation to private parking charges and PoFA compliance.
Please confirm:
1. Whether you accept that this agreement constitutes a “hire agreement” for the purposes of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 13.
2. Whether you accept that refusing to provide the document prevents lawful transfer of liability.
3. Whether you accept that disclosing the hirer’s personal data in such circumstances may breach the requirements of fair and lawful processing under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.
Your prompt response will determine whether I now refer this matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service, the ICO, and the BVRLA.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
So, you escalate to the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA) by emailing with the following to ICA@dvla.gov.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: ICA complaint – misuse of keeper data by UKPS – DVLA handling failure [0404017-Y3Z3B]
Dear Independent Complaints Assessor,
I am escalating my complaint because the DVLA’s Step 2 reply (dated 9th June 2025) did not address the core issue: UK Parking Solutions Ltd (UKPS) misused my keeper data after obtaining it from the DVLA under the KADOE scheme.
The following four points highlight the DVLA's failures:
1. DVLA position:
“Reasonable cause” is judged only at the point of request.
Why the response is inadequate:
The KADOE contract is explicit that keeper data may be used solely “for the purpose of enforcement in accordance with the prevailing Code of Practice”. Once UKPS breached PPSCoP 8.1.1(d), their use of the data ceased to be lawful—even if the original request was valid.
2. DVLA position:
PoFA compliance is “not required”.
Why the response is inadequate:
Nobody argued it was. The complaint is that UKPS invoked PoFA in wording but failed to meet para 9(2)(f). Misrepresentation is data misuse. This point has been avoided altogether.
3. DVLA position:
“We do not arbitrate civil disputes.”
Why the response is inadequate:
I was not asking the DVLA to settle a parking dispute—only to enforce its own contract and data-protection duties when misuse is shown to have occurred, as it has in this instance.
4. DVLA position:
Cites the ICO Opinion (Jun 2022) to justify disclosure.
Why the response is inadequate:
The 'Opinion' expressly states that operators must comply with the Code. It does not excuse post-disclosure misuse which was the cause for the complaint in the first place.
Because the DVLA failed to engage with these four points, it failed to apply its own policies or consider enforcement action against UKPS. I therefore ask the ICA to review the DVLA’s handling of my complaint and recommend that the case is re-opened and referred to DVLA Enforcement & Compliance.
I attach:
• my original Step 1 and Step 2 submissions;
• the DVLA Step 2 response;
• a copy of the UKPS Notice to Keeper showing the PoFA 9(2)(f) omission.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours sincerely,
[Your name]
[Date]
There are copies of four documents required to be PoFA compliant that UKPS should have included with their NtK.
(a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b) a copy of the hire agreement;
(c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement; and
(d) a copy of the NtK that was sent to the Keeper.
All we have see is (a). Did you receive copies of b), (c) and (d)? Of course you didn't. Therefore, the operator has not complied with all the requirements of PoFA to be able to transfer liability from the unknown (to them) driver to you, the known Hirer.
Does the email you received with the appeal rejection show or indicate that there were any attachments to it? If it can be used as evidence of the lying behaviour of UKPS, then it should be sent as additional evidence to a Step 2 complaint to the DVLA. Don't send the Step 2 complaint if you can show that the email you received shows or failed to show that there were any attachments, as I would have to amend the wording slightly.
To send the Step 2 complaint, you go through the same steps as for there initial complaint except that the web address is:
https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/head-of-complaints
Subject: Step 2 Escalation – Misuse of Personal Data and Deliberate Misrepresentation by UK Parking Solutions Ltd (UKPS)
Dear DVLA Head of Complaints,
I am writing to escalate my complaint regarding the misuse of my personal data by UK Parking Solutions Ltd (UKPS) to Step 2 of your complaints process.
This matter concerns not just technical breaches, but deliberate misrepresentation by a DVLA-approved KADOE user, acting in direct violation of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and the terms of the KADOE contract.
Background
As clarified in your Step 1 response, my data was not released to UKPS by the DVLA directly, but was passed to them via a Transfer of Liability by the vehicle’s registered keeper, Volkswagen Financial Services UK Ltd.
However, UKPS is a KADOE account holder, and the conditions of use attached to KADOE data access apply regardless of how the data was obtained. The purpose of the KADOE contract is to ensure that AOS members process personal data lawfully, proportionately, and in full compliance with the PPSCoP — including when pursuing charges via hirer liability under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
Substance of the Complaint – Deliberate False Representation
UKPS issued a Notice to Hirer (NtH) which falsely states that it encloses all four documents required under Paragraph 13(2) of PoFA. In reality, none of these documents were enclosed. This was not an accidental omission — the covering page explicitly asserts that the documents are included, which makes this a deliberate misrepresentation.
This was not an isolated incident. UKPS has now repeated the false claim in their written response to my appeal. They stated that the Transfer of Liability was “attached,” when in fact nothing was enclosed. This is consistent with the earlier Notice to Hirer, which similarly claimed that four PoFA-mandated documents were included — when they were not. The repeated nature of these omissions, accompanied by false assertions that the documents were provided, demonstrates deliberate misrepresentation and unlawful data processing, not administrative error. This is a clear abuse of DVLA-sourced personal data, and one that warrants regulatory action.
The effect of this is that UKPS is:
• Asserting that the statutory requirements of PoFA have been met (when they haven’t);
• Knowingly processing personal data on a false legal basis;
• Misleading the recipient about their liability in order to extract payment.
This goes far beyond mere sloppiness. It is a calculated and mendacious act designed to fabricate the appearance of PoFA compliance and shift liability unlawfully.
If the DVLA accepts such conduct at face value, then it is allowing the integrity of the vehicle register to be undermined by rogue operators. The PPSCoP and KADOE contract become meaningless if operators can simply lie about their compliance and continue to access and process personal data without oversight or consequence.
Recommendation
Perhaps it is time the DVLA stops assuming that operators are acting in good faith and starts investigating whether they are, in fact, lying. I strongly suggest that the DVLA conduct a sting operation — for example, by hiring a vehicle and deliberately breaching a term in a car park operated by UKPS. The resulting NtH is likely to contain the same false assertion that the required documents are enclosed, when in reality they will not be. This would serve as hard proof that the breach is systemic and deliberate, not accidental.
Request
I am therefore asking the DVLA to:
• Investigate whether UKPS’s actions amount to a breach of the KADOE contract and PPSCoP;
• Determine whether the deliberate false assertion of PoFA compliance invalidates the legal basis for processing my personal data;
• Consider enforcement action including suspension or termination of KADOE access if breaches are established;
• Acknowledge that “self-certification” by operators is wholly inadequate when clear evidence exists of falsified statutory compliance.
Please confirm receipt of this escalation and provide a Step 2 complaint reference. I am happy to provide copies of the NtH and supporting evidence again if required.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Original DVLA Complaint Date / Reference Number]
Duh! Respond as follows:
Subject: Re: Mischaracterisation of PCN 3745727 – Formal Response Required
Dear Lauren Spurway,
Thank you for your response regarding PCN 3745727.
However, your latest correspondence regrettably continues to propagate the same fundamental errors and mischaracterisations found in the original letters from SEAT Financial Services.
To reiterate, UKPS Ltd is not a statutory authority. It is a private parking operator, and any Parking Charge Notice it issues is a civil matter, not a criminal or statutory offence. To describe the matter as a “fine” or refer to UKPS as the “issuing authority” is demonstrably incorrect and potentially misleading under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
You state:
"We would kindly request that the fine is settled directly with UKPS Ltd. Alternatively, if you believe the fine has been incorrectly issued you will need to appeal directly with the issuing authority."
This conflates Penalty Charge Notices, issued under statutory enforcement regimes by public bodies, with Parking Charge Notices, which are non-statutory invoices issued under contract law by private companies. The terms are not interchangeable.
Furthermore, your suggestion that "we have not made any payment for this fine" is appreciated—but it is troubling that your policies seem to allow for unauthorised payment of non-statutory invoices on a customer's behalf. As you are aware (or ought to be), Schedule 4 Paragraph 13 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 allows a vehicle hire company to transfer liability by providing the required hirer information and a copy of the hire agreement. If this has been done, then no liability remains with Volkswagen Financial Services, and certainly no payment should be made.
Accordingly, I request the following:
• Written confirmation that your organisation understands that a Parking Charge Notice from UKPS Ltd is not a fine, not a statutory matter, and does not originate from a public authority.
• A correction of your internal templates and procedures to ensure future correspondence does not refer to civil invoices as “offences” or “fines”, nor describe private companies as “authorities”.
• Confirmation that no further speculative invoices will be paid without the express written consent of the hirer, particularly where Paragraph 13 compliance has been achieved.
• Written assurance that the terms and conditions you refer to do not permit unilateral payment of private parking charges—only statutory fines where liability cannot be transferred.
If your response fails to address these points appropriately, I will consider raising a formal complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service, and if necessary, with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), given your responsibilities as the registered keeper and data controller under UK data protection law, and the serious risk of misrepresentation in your correspondence with the hirer.
Please treat this as a formal complaint unless resolved satisfactorily.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Agreement Reference Number]
I'll bet the lying bar stewards at UKPS did not include the copies of the documents they claim they have included with their Notice to Hirer (NtH).
I would appeal with the following:
APPEAL FROM HIRER – NO LIABILITY ADMITTED
I am the Hirer of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this Parking Charge and will not be identifying the driver.
Your Notice to Hirer falsely claims compliance with Paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). It states that the required documents were enclosed, yet none of the following four statutory documents were included:
(a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm confirming that the vehicle was hired to a named person at the material time;
(b) A copy of the hire agreement;
(c) A copy of the statement of liability signed by the Hirer under that agreement;
(d) A copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the hire company.
This is not an oversight. The statement in your NtH that these documents were enclosed is a deliberately mendacious. This is not the first time UKPS have been observed issuing NtHs that falsely assert compliance with PoFA. Multiple such cases have now been documented. Your company has been repeatedly caught engaging in this dishonest and unlawful practice.
Your conduct is a clear abuse of DVLA data, obtained on the false premise that you have a lawful basis to pursue the Hirer. You do not.
You are now formally notified that this incident is being reported to the DVLA’s Data Sharing Team, along with supporting evidence, as a breach of the terms and conditions under which access to registered keeper data is granted. A parallel report will be submitted to the Information Commissioner’s Office under the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018, on the grounds that you are processing personal data unlawfully, without a valid basis in law.
You will be expected to respond to both the DVLA and the ICO and may face sanctions, including the suspension or permanent revocation of your access to DVLA data.
This charge is rejected outright. There is no Hirer liability. Do not contact me again unless you are confirming cancellation or dare to try and litigate this matter
You really are dealing with a rogue firm of ex-clamper thugs who clearly do not hesitate to lie and threaten. Report them to the DVLA and the ICO.
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 UK Parking Solutions Ltd (UKPS), 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.
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: UK Parking Solutions Ltd (UKPS)
Date of PCN issue: [INSERT DATE]
Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]
I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my personal data by UK Parking Solutions Ltd (UKPS), 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, UKPS has breached the PPSCoP in the following way:
They issued a Notice to Hirer which falsely stated that it enclosed all four documents required under Paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). In reality, none of these documents were enclosed. These documents are:
(a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm confirming that the vehicle was hired to a named person;
(b) a copy of the hire agreement;
(c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that agreement;
(d) a copy of the Notice to Keeper issued to the hire company.
This was not an accidental omission. The NtH explicitly stated that the documents were enclosed, meaning UKPS have made a deliberate false representation of PoFA compliance. This is a known pattern of conduct by UKPS, with other documented cases now emerging. It amounts to a clear abuse of DVLA data and an attempt to mislead vehicle hirers into assuming liability where no legal basis exists.
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]
I'd respond to Set with the following:
Subject: Re: POP1 421567/406 – Mischaracterisation of Civil Parking Notice as Criminal Offencee
Dear Customer Operations,
I refer to the two recent letters received from SEAT Financial Services, including your correspondence dated 01/04/2025 concerning a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from UKPS Limited.
With the greatest respect, the legal and factual errors contained in your letters are so numerous and severe that I feel compelled to respond. It is astonishing that your organisation—a financial services firm responsible for vehicle leasing—has issued correspondence referring to:
• A Parking Charge Notice (a speculative invoice from a private company)
• as a “Driving Offence”,
• and the issuing company, UKPS Limited, as an “authority.”
There is no ambiguity here. UKPS Limited is not a public authority. They are a private entity. A PCN from such a company is a civil matter relating to an alleged breach of contract, not a criminal or statutory offence. Your description of this as an “offence” and referral to an “authority” is not just inaccurate—it is outright misleading. If this letter were placed before a regulator or ombudsman, I expect they would share my view that this language amounts to misrepresentation.
Furthermore, your earlier letter implies that SEAT Financial Services may be held liable for a PCN under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Again, I must remind you that Schedule 4, Paragraph 13 of the Act sets out a clear mechanism whereby the liability of a hire company as keeper is fully discharged once hirer details and a copy of the hire agreement are provided. That provision exists precisely so hire companies like yours are not liable provided you follow the correct process. Your apparent unfamiliarity with this basic point raises serious concerns.
This appears to be a case where your staff are issuing template responses without any understanding of the legal framework—or worse, fabricating authority where none exists. It would benefit your organisation to ensure that any staff involved in this area receive basic training in the following areas:
1. The difference between civil and criminal matters;
2. The non-statutory nature of private parking companies;
3. The correct interpretation of liability under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, particularly Paragraph 13;
4. The risk of misrepresentation where false references to “offences” and “authorities” are made.
To prevent any further confusion or misrepresentation:
• Please confirm that SEAT Financial Services will not pay any speculative invoices issued by a private parking firm on my behalf without my explicit consent.
• Please confirm that my details have only been passed to the issuing company, not to any statutory authority or enforcement body.
• Please ensure future communications do not mischaracterise civil PCNs as “offences” or refer to private companies as “authorities.”
If you are unable or unwilling to correct these serious procedural and legal failings, I will not hesitate to escalate this matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the DVLA, given your role in handling sensitive registered keeper data under KADOE arrangements.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]