Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: bregretec on May 21, 2025, 06:05:46 pm

Title: Re: NCP Parking Charge to Keeper - parked without payment - Church St (Kings Lynn)
Post by: bregretec on May 22, 2025, 01:06:19 pm

Quote from: b789 on May 22, 2025, 04:59:50 am

Do not simplify your first suggested appeal. Your draft reply to NCP is excellent. It's well-structured, assertive, and legally accurate, especially in highlighting the failure to comply with Paragraph 9(5) of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.

Also, NCP are one of the few firms that are likely to cancel at first appeal.

They have indeed unlawfully processed your Keeper data obtained from the DVLA and it also warrants a DVLA complaint because they have breached the PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d) which, in turn is a breach of their KADOE contract with the DVLA.

Section 8.1.1(d) states:

Quote

The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.

The good thing about being off work for cancer treatment is (a) I'm so slow at getting things done ;D that I'm yet to speak to the keeper so can do the above instead and (b) I'm off work so have all the time in the world to deal with things that annoy me. So I'll follow your advice - thank you - and see if it gets NCP to cancel instantly.
Also very willing to submit a complaint to DVLA - thank you for the PPSCoP reference as that was something I hadn't managed to find and seeing it makes me even angrier at NCP for using the language they did. If we hadn't been at their house when the letter arrived/was opened on Monday 19th, I know the wording would have intimidated them into paying as keeper without telling any of us.
Will keep you posted.

Title: Re: NCP Parking Charge to Keeper - parked without payment - Church St (Kings Lynn)
Post by: b789 on May 22, 2025, 04:59:50 am

Do not simplify your first suggested appeal. Your draft reply to NCP is excellent. It's well-structured, assertive, and legally accurate, especially in highlighting the failure to comply with Paragraph 9(5) of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.

Also, NCP are one of the few firms that are likely to cancel at first appeal.

They have indeed unlawfully processed your Keeper data obtained from the DVLA and it also warrants a DVLA complaint because they have breached the PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d) which, in turn is a breach of their KADOE contract with the DVLA.

Section 8.1.1(d) states:

Quote

The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.

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:

Quote

I am submitting a formal complaint against National Car Parks Limited (NCP), a BPA AOS member with DVLA KADOE access, for breaching the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) after obtaining my personal data.

While NCP 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.

I have prepared a supporting statement detailing the breach and NCP’s actions. Please investigate and confirm a complaint reference.

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

Quote

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP

Operator name: National Car Parks Limited (NCP)
Date of PCN issue: 15 May 2025
Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]

I am reporting a misuse of my personal data by NCP, who obtained my keeper details from the DVLA under the KADOE contract.

Although they may have had reasonable cause to request my data initially, their use of it became unlawful because they acted in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The PPSCoP is a mandatory requirement for DVLA data access.

The KADOE contract makes clear that keeper data may only be used to pursue a parking charge in line with the Code of Practice. NCP issued a Notice to Keeper dated 15 May 2025 for an alleged incident on 2 May 2025. By law (PoFA 2012, Schedule 4), the notice must be delivered within 14 days to hold the keeper liable. This was not just missed but never achievable.

Despite this, NCP’s letter falsely claims a right to recover the charge from me as keeper and threatens court and debt recovery action. This is a misrepresentation of legal position and unlawful processing of personal data for a purpose they knew was no longer permitted.

These are not minor breaches. They demonstrate a clear failure to act in accordance with the KADOE contract and PPSCoP.

The DVLA remains the Data Controller and must ensure personal data is not misused. I request a full investigation and enforcement action as appropriate.

This may include:

• Confirming that a breach has occurred
• Taking enforcement action against the operator
•Suspending or terminating their KADOE access if warranted

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

Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]
Date: [INSERT DATE]

Title: Re: NCP Parking Charge to Keeper - parked without payment - Church St (Kings Lynn)
Post by: DWMB2 on May 21, 2025, 08:58:56 pm

You could just put it in for them using their details, if they give you their permission of course.

There's a fair chance they'll accept your appeal - NCP sometimes give up when they know they've got no chance. But equally they may not.

Title: Re: NCP Parking Charge to Keeper - parked without payment - Church St (Kings Lynn)
Post by: bregretec on May 21, 2025, 08:32:03 pm

I really appreciate your replying - will talk said relative through the online appeal and no doubt be back once the appeal is rejected.

Title: Re: NCP Parking Charge to Keeper - parked without payment - Church St (Kings Lynn)
Post by: jfollows on May 21, 2025, 08:21:23 pm

That’s what I would do, yes.

Title: Re: NCP Parking Charge to Keeper - parked without payment - Church St (Kings Lynn)
Post by: bregretec on May 21, 2025, 08:11:02 pm

Quote from: jfollows on May 21, 2025, 07:54:14 pm

I think your reply will have the same effect as a simpler one just saying that the keeper is not liable because of PoFA non-compliance, that’s to say NCP will reject the appeal but supply a POPLA code in which your detailed arguments will come into their own and lead to cancellation.

Thank you - so I might as well remove the data processing bits entirely and keep it short & sweet along the below?

-----

I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle. There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so.

As your Notice to Keeper was served out of time it does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn.

As your NtK is out of time I am unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that

• The charge has been cancelled;
• You have creased processing my personal data;
• My personal details have been removed from your systems.

If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.

Title: Re: NCP Parking Charge to Keeper - parked without payment - Church St (Kings Lynn)
Post by: jfollows on May 21, 2025, 07:54:14 pm

I think your reply will have the same effect as a simpler one just saying that the keeper is not liable because of PoFA non-compliance, that’s to say NCP will reject the appeal but supply a POPLA code in which your detailed arguments will come into their own and lead to cancellation.

Title: Re: NCP Parking Charge to Keeper - parked without payment - Church St (Kings Lynn)
Post by: bregretec on May 21, 2025, 07:32:03 pm

Quote from: DWMB2 on May 21, 2025, 06:21:56 pm

The forum Software doesn't allow HTML Code, You can either use BBCode or just use plain text and the buttons provided in the forum software.

How it looks when you're typing is roughly how it'll look when you post. Don't use the "preview" feature, for some reason it doesn't show any formatting, and it's not within our gift to fix it.

Thank you - yep, using preview is what threw me! Have edited to remove all the <> nonsense so hopefully it's easier for people to read.

Title: Re: NCP Parking Charge to Keeper - parked without payment - Church St (Kings Lynn)
Post by: DWMB2 on May 21, 2025, 06:21:56 pm

The forum Software doesn't allow HTML Code, You can either use BBCode or just use plain text and the buttons provided in the forum software.

How it looks when you're typing is roughly how it'll look when you post. Don't use the "preview" feature, for some reason it doesn't show any formatting, and it's not within our gift to fix it.

Title: Re: NCP Parking Charge to Keeper - parked without payment - Church St (Kings Lynn)
Post by: bregretec on May 21, 2025, 06:14:03 pm

I'm so sorry - when I try posting without adding HTML the preview shows as a mass of text; when I switch to adding html to ensure line breaks etc it - as you can see - throws the coding into the post. Guess I should ignore the preview and assume line breaks etc carry across from the message box to the eventual post!

Title: Re: NCP Parking Charge to Keeper - parked without payment - Church St (Kings Lynn)
Post by: bregretec on May 21, 2025, 06:12:31 pm

First draft reply

I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle. There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so.

Although the letter is titled "Parking Charge to Keeper" and there is no explicit reference to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("The Act"), I note that

• My details as keeper were obtained only pursuant to your undertaking to DVLA that these would be used for permitted and statutory purposes, namely to issue a Notice to Keeper ("NtK"), and you therefore intended that I treat the letter as a NtK.
• Your correspondence threatens to hold me liable as the registered keeper which can only be done by serving a NtK that complies with Schedule 4 of The Act.

1. Your Notice to Keeper was served out of time and no liability attaches to me as registered keeper
Your NtK was sent on 15 May 2025 and therefore deemed to have been given to the keeper on Monday 19 May, which is the second working day following 15 May.

As the relevant time period for issuing the NtK under The Act expired on 17 May 2025, your NtK was served out of time and you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn.

2. Inappropriate processing of personal data
Although it was evident on the date the NtK was printed that you were out of time to invoke The Act against me as keeper if you could not identify the driver, you chose to send a NtK with the wording

"[..] we will have the right to recover from you, so much of the Parking Charge as remains unpaid.

Additional charges may be recovered from the liable party if debt recovery action or court proceedings become necessary. This notice is deemed to have been given to you on the second working day after the date of sending above."

• Sentence 1 contains a claim that you knew to be false on the day it was printed.
• Your decision to follow this false claim with sentence 2's reference to court proceedings reads as an attempt to intimidate me as keeper into believing that you have a legally enforceable right against me as keeper.
• Your decision to surround sentence 2 with "you" sentences directed at me as keeper reads as an attempt to intimidate me as keeper into believing that you can bring debt recovery action, court proceedings and additional charges against me as keeper, if I do not pay the parking charge (as keeper) or identify the driver.

I do not believe that "obtaining and using keeper details from the DVLA to send false claims and intimidatory language/threats that you already know cannot be enforced against the keeper" is a legitimate enforcement purpose envisaged by the ICO, DVLA or NCP's Cark Park Terms. Your NtK demonstrates inappropriate processing of my personal data and also breaches NCP's Privacy Policy requirements to only process personal data for lawful, fair, legitimate and authorised purposes.

Conclusion
As your NtK is out of time I am unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that

• The charge has been cancelled;
• You have creased processing my personal data which you only obtained by virtue of my being the registered keeper, as continued processing will cause further damage or distress;
• My personal details have been removed from your systems.

If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code. Be aware that issuing a POPLA code extends the duration of your data processing breach with a consequential increase in the damage and distress caused to me as a result; and this will be reflected in my complaints to NCP's data protection officer, the ICO and DVLA.

-----------ENDS

[edited to remove coding errors]

Title: NCP Parking Charge to Keeper - parked without payment - Church St (Kings Lynn)
Post by: bregretec on May 21, 2025, 06:05:46 pm

First time poster on behalf of an elderly relative who's not tech-savvy enough to post directly.

• Recipient: The registered keeper is an elderly relative who has received a Parking Charge to Keeper letter from NCP, with photos and entry/exit times showing that 17 minutes elapsed between the car's arrival and departure from an NCP car park.
• Background: The driver entered the car park, parked up, walked to the Pay & Display machine and tried to pay repeatedly with cash (cash no longer accepted); as they had no bank card or phone app they walked back to their car and left. The driver is elderly with assorted health conditions that affect walking speed.
• Images/info: letter attached - I can't provide images of car park signage as yet because I'm 100+ miles away from them, but the below may make car park images redundant anyway?

From reading recent threads on here and MSE am I right that

• Although the letter isn't titled Notice to Keeper and doesn't mention POFA it is an attempted NtK because (a) the only legitimate purpose for getting keeper details from DVLA is to send a Notice to Keeper and (b) the letter reads as though they plan to invoke POFA against the keeper since it claims they have the right to seek the unpaid parking charge from the keeper if no driver is identified?

• The NtK fails before you even run a word-by-word analysis for POFA-compliance, because Date of Incident is 2 May; applying 9(5) the notice must be given to keeper on/by 17 May to comply with POFA. Date of sending is Thursday 15 May: applying 9(4) and 9(6) the notice was deemed delivered/given to keeper on Monday 19 May as Saturday 17 May was not a working day. Therefore the NtK was not given to keeper in time for NCP to be able to invoke POFA against the keeper.

I've drafted the below response for my relative so far from looking at threads here and on MSE, unsure whether to limit it to text on NtK being out of time or if adding wording re threats (that they knew were unenforceable) and data processing helps prompt them to cancel the charge and not go to POPLA?

Relative's spouse has early dementia and won't remember that they need to ignore letters, so each letter risks the spouse panic-paying if they open the post.

[edited to remove coding errors]

[attachment deleted by admin]