You can safely ignore all debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to actually do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree pay up out of ignorance and fear. We don’t need to see their letters and you should shred them and use them as hamster bedding for all anyone cares.
However, as Bank Park have failed to respond to the appeal or formal complaint, you should send the following formal complaint and warning to the BPA AOS compliance team and CC Bank Park.
Send it to: aos@britishparking.co.uk and CC enquiries@bankpark.co.uk and dataprotection@bankpark.co.uk and yourself:
Subject: Bank Park Management Ltd – PCN [ref]: Debt collection during unresolved appeal/complaint
Dear BPA AOS Investigations,
I require the BPA to take immediate action regarding Bank Park Management Ltd (AOS member) and PCN [ref]. The operator has escalated the case to ZZPS while both the appeal remained undecided and a formal complaint remained unanswered. This is an unfair commercial practice that will be reported to the Competition and Markets Authority under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. The BPA, as the Approved Trade Association responsible for oversight, will be named in that referral for persistent failure to police member conduct.
Timeline:
• 9 September 2025 – Appeal lodged and acknowledged by Bank Park.
• 23 October 2025 – “Final Reminder” sent in place of a reasoned appeal decision.
• 3 November 2025 – Formal complaint submitted; only auto-responses received; no substantive outcome.
• [Date] – Debt-collection letter from ZZPS to the registered keeper while the appeal and complaint remain unresolved.
Primary issue: DMCC consumer harm and ATA oversight
Debt escalation during an unresolved appeal or complaint exerts pressure on the consumer to pay before any fair determination. It frustrates the dispute resolution framework and distorts decision-making. This is not a one-off; it reflects wider non-compliance among AOS members and repeated weaknesses in ATA oversight. I will therefore report both Bank Park and the BPA to the CMA under the DMCC.
Possible consequences under the DMCC for operators and facilitators include investigation and enforcement action for unfair commercial practices, enforcement orders and undertakings, significant monetary penalties including turnover-based fines with further penalties for non-compliance, and directions to improve systems and controls with public compliance statements.
Secondary issue: PPSCoP breach and KADOE misuse
While the consumer-protection breach is the headline, there are parallel PPSCoP failures requiring immediate BPA action: failure to pause enforcement while an appeal is outstanding; failure to issue a timely, reasoned decision with an independent appeal route; failure to run a compliant complaints process and to treat a complaint relating to a PCN as an appeal for timescales; improper debt escalation during an unresolved appeal or complaint; and hire-vehicle liability defects where the Notice to Hirer did not include the prescribed hire documents required for strict PoFA Schedule 4 paragraphs 13–14 compliance, so no hirer liability arises. These PPSCoP breaches also engage DVLA KADOE obligations. A copy of this complaint will be included in a formal DVLA complaint for misuse of keeper data while enforcement should have been paused.
Actions required from the BPA within 7 days:
1, Direct Bank Park to recall the case from ZZPS and any other debt recovery agent, pause all enforcement, and issue a reasoned appeal or complaint decision, resetting all deadlines from the date of that decision.
2. Record the compliance breaches against Bank Park and confirm the sanctions applied, such as compliance points, a mandatory corrective action plan, audit, or suspension.
3. Confirm the supervisory steps the BPA will take to prevent recurrence across AOS members, including clear instruction that debt recovery must not commence while an appeal or complaint is unresolved, with monitoring and consequences for breach.
Notice of escalation
If this is not resolved within 7 days, I will submit a CMA DMCC complaint naming Bank Park and the BPA as the ATA responsible for ineffective oversight, a DVLA KADOE misuse complaint (copying this letter), and a data protection complaint to the ICO concerning unlawful disclosure to a debt recovery agent during a paused dispute.
Evidence available on request:
• Appeal acknowledgement dated 9 September 2025.
• Final Reminder dated 23 October 2025.
• Formal complaint dated 3 November 2025 and auto-responses.
• ZZPS letter dated [date].
• Notice to Hirer (all pages).
Please confirm receipt and the immediate directions issued to Bank Park.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[Email]
[PCN reference]
Yes.
1. Forward the original “appeal received” email as a .eml attachment (preserves full headers).
2. Also attach a screenshot or PDF of the acknowledgement.
3. Reply to the person who asked and cc the complaints address you used on 3 Nov.
Ask them to:
• log the appeal to the PCN with the original receipt date (9 Sept)
• confirm the case is on hold and confirm the decision deadline (or reset and state the new decision date)
• withdraw the reminder and confirm no data will be shared with third parties pending the decision
• if they claim no record, provide their mail server logs for your acknowledgement timestamp/ID
Paste this as your message:
Subject: PCN [ref] – Appeal acknowledgement evidence (9 September)
Dear Bank Park,
You asked for proof of the lodged appeal. Attached is the original .eml of your “appeal received” acknowledgement dated 9 September 2025, plus a screenshot/PDF.
Please log the appeal against PCN [ref] with receipt date 9/9/2025, place the case on hold, and confirm the decision deadline. Please also withdraw the reminder and confirm no data will be shared with third parties pending outcome. If your system does not show this, please provide your mail server logs for the date/time of the acknowledgement.
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
[Address]
[PCN ref]
Send a formal complaint as follows and CC yourself:
Subject: Formal Complaint – No Appeal Decision, PPSCoP Breach & KADOE Misuse – PCN [ref]
Dear Bank Park Management Ltd,
This is a formal complaint about your handling of PCN [ref].
Background & key breach
• I lodged an appeal against your Notice to Hirer on 8 September 2025 (acknowledged by you the same day).
• As of 30 October 2025 (52 days later) you have not issued any appeal decision.
• Instead, you sent a “Final Reminder” dated 23 October 2025.
Issuing a payment demand while an appeal is outstanding and failing to provide a timely, reasoned decision with an independent appeal route breaches the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) requirement to pause enforcement during an appeal and to decide the appeal within a reasonable timescale. Your conduct is procedurally unfair and non-compliant.
Further non-compliance (non-exhaustive)
1. Misuse of DVLA data / KADOE breach – Using DVLA keeper/hirer data to pursue payment via a reminder while an appeal is live is outside permitted use. Compliance with the PPSCoP is a condition of DVLA KADOE access. Your breach of the Code therefore constitutes a KADOE breach.
2. Hire-vehicle PoFA defects (no hirer liability) – Your Notice to Hirer did not enclose the copy hire agreement and the prescribed statement of liability required by PoFA 2012, Sch.4 paras 13–14. In the absence of strict compliance, no liability transfers to the hirer.
3. Improper driver assumption – Your correspondence presumes or infers I was the driver. I have not identified the driver and am under no legal obligation to do so to an unregulated parking firm.
4. Threat of unrecoverable add-ons – The threatened £70 “debt recovery” is not recoverable.
Remedies required (within 7 days of receipt)
• Cancel the PCN; or
• Issue a formal rejection (not a reminder) with the independent appeal code and reset all payment/appeal deadlines from the date of that decision; and
• Confirm the case is on hold and that no data will be shared with third parties pending outcome.
Restriction of processing (effective immediately)
Under UK GDPR Article 18, restrict processing for this PCN while this complaint and the appeal remain unresolved. Do not pass my data to any third party (including debt collectors). Confirm in writing that processing is restricted.
Notice of escalation
If you fail to comply within 7 days, I will submit a formal complaint to the DVLA for KADOE misuse (breach of PPSCoP obligations linked to data access) and seek sanctions against your access. I also reserve the right to complain to the ICO for unlawful processing and to pursue costs arising from your non-compliance.
Treat this as a complaint under your published complaints procedure and respond in full within your stated timeframe.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Postal address]
[Email]
[PCN reference]
DO NOT try to steal to an unregulated private parking firm of ex-clampers. Even if you could get through you'd have no record of anything that is said.
You will not miss any appeal deadline because you CANNOT appeal until you receive an NtH in your name. You are NOT the Keeper.
If your moronic lease company have transferred the liability correctly, the there is no longer any liability on them and the operator cannot go back to them again. All they can do is issue an NtH to you and you can then appeal and will tell you exactly what to put in that appeal.
SO what if it takes a coupe of weeks for them to send the NtH? You will have 28 days from receipt of the NtH to appeal it.
I suggest you respond to the lease company with the following:
Subject: Your PCN template misstates the law – urgent correction required
Dear [Lease Company],
Your wording below from the letter your recently sent me is incorrect and misleading:
“The changes mean that [Stellantis Financial Services UK Ltd] as the registered keeper can be held liable for these charges if you take no action.
In the event we receive a second notification from a Private Parking Operator for the same offence, we will pay the outstanding amount and recharge this amount to you….”
This is wrong as this is not an “offence”, fine or penalty. A Parking Charge Notice from an unregulated private operator is a civil contractual claim. The sender is not an authority, and no criminal or statutory “offence”, “fine” or “penalty” arises.
Keeper liability is conditional—and the duty is yours, not the hirer’s. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, a registered keeper can only be pursued if strict conditions are met and the keeper fails to transfer liability. For hire vehicles, paragraphs 13–14 set out your clear route to avoid keeper liability: within the statutory period you must provide the operator with:
(a) a statement that the vehicle was hired,
(b) a copy of the hire agreement and the prescribed statement of liability, and
(c) the hirer’s name and serviceable address.
Once you do this, liability transfers and the operator must pursue the hirer with a Notice to Hirer. Your phrase “if you take no action” wrongly dumps your statutory duty onto the hirer. There is no such thing as a “second notification” trigger in PoFA. “Second notification” is your internal process, not a legal milestone.
If you receive further letters, it usually means you have not transferred liability correctly or on time. The cure is to complete the PoFA paras 13–14 transfer, not to pay.
Paying and recharging is improper in a disputed, private civil claim. Unless your contract expressly and lawfully permits it (and even then, it must be fair and transparent), choosing to voluntarily pay a non-statutory invoice and then recharge the hirer—plus an admin fee—is unreasonable. The correct step is to name the hirer and send the prescribed documents so the operator re-issues the notice properly. Anything else risks a breach of contract and an unfair term issue.
Do not pay the PCN. Within the statutory period, provide the operator with the hirer’s full name and serviceable address and the prescribed hire documents (PoFA Sch.4 paras 13–14). Confirm to the hirer in writing that liability has been transferred and that no payment or recharge will be made.
You should amend your template so it does not refer to “authority”, “offence”, “fine” or “penalty” in relation to private parking invoices. As a simple accuracy check, please count how many times those words appear in the operator’s notice itself. For every genuine occurrence, the hirer will gladly send you £100. For every occurrence that appears only in your letter, please remove it from your templates and confirm you have corrected your processes.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[Agreement/Reg No.]
Your lease company have acted wrongly here. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) clearly states:
If the vehicle has been hired, please provide us with a signed statement confirming the hirer's name and address and include a copy of both the hire agreement and their statement of liability, as required under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Instead of following that process, they sent a Letter of Authorisation (LoA). That is not what PoFA requires, and if the operator refuses to accept it, liability remains with the lease company which means they may end up paying it and charging it back to you.
They have also wrongly referred to this as a "Penalty" charge notice. It is nothing of the sort. A penalty can only arise from a statutory authority. This is a civil matter, and the notice is merely a speculative invoice alleging a breach of contract by the driver, issued by an unregulated private parking company.
You should instruct your lease company to transfer liability properly, in accordance with the NtK and PoFA. Once they have provided the operator with the hirer’s details, a copy of the hire agreement, and the statement of liability, the lease company are absolved of any liability. The operator must then serve a Notice to Hirer (NtH) in your name.
When you receive the NtH, you should appeal only as the Hirer. Operators rarely comply fully with PoFA in hire situations, meaning liability cannot pass to the hirer. Only the driver could then be liable, and the operator has no evidence of who that was unless the Hirer discloses it, inadvertently or otherwise.
Once you receive an NtH in your name, use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
I am the Hirer of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the Hirer of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Bank Park has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtH can only hold the driver liable. Bank Park have no hope should you be so stupid as to try and litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.