sorry this post is incorrect and was deleted by me.Good afternoon
I have received this today from 'Trace debt recovery'
This is the first communication they have made with me even though they claim that they have contacted me before.
Here is the letter:
https://ibb.co/vCWNcJwH
What's next.....do I contact them to let them know that we are waiting on POPLA or just ignore it for the time being.
Thanks
Hashim
That appears to be a fairly large procedural error on the part of Euro Car Parks as you are currently in the appeals process.
I would immediately write to ECP and ask why they have released your data to a third party debt collector when you are still in the appeals process.
Good afternoon
I have received this today from 'Trace debt recovery'
This is the first communication they have made with me even though they claim that they have contacted me before.
Here is the letter:
https://ibb.co/vCWNcJwH
What's next.....do I contact them to let them know that we are waiting on POPLA or just ignore it for the time being.
Thanks
Hashim
Hello
Received a further correspondence from DVLA.
https://ibb.co/wNNhMrM2
Thanks
Hashim
POPLA Parking Appeal for PCN reference xxxxxxxx
I am the registered keeper of vehicle registration xxxx xxx
I wish to appeal the PCN on the grounds that there is no PoFA invoked keeper liability at this car park site.
The driver is not known to the parking operator and there is no legal requirement for me to identify the driver in this circumstance.
Furthermore, the PCN issued by Euro Car Parks is unlawful as it falsely claims that PoFA can be applied in order to move liability from the unknown driver to the known keeper - this appears to be a deliberately misleading claim designed to pressure the keeper into paying.
The claim of keeper liability is also a clear breach of the operator's own Code of Conduct which EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS the mentioning of PoFA (in a PCN) in instances where PoFA cannot apply - any breach of the Code of Conduct is also a breach of the operators KADOE agreement - as a result, the keeper data released to the operator has also been misused.
Furthermore, the issues with PoFA were outlined in my original keeper appeal but again Euro Car Parks issued a response which once again mis-stated their true legal position and again implied that liability could be moved onto the keeper - this appears to illustrate the incompetence of the Euro Car Park staff who are clearly mishandling valid appeals. It also illustrates the fact that Euro Car Parks are not assessing the nature of the land before commencing their parking enforcement - as a result they are issuing unlawful and non-compliant NtKs.
The facts in the case are;
The land at Fullwell Cross Leisure Centre is owned by the London Borough of Redbridge.
The London Borough of Redbridge is a Council and therefore, legally, constitutes a traffic authority.
The car park is therefore council owned and, in law, represents 'a parking place provided by a traffic authority.'
It appears that Euro Car Parks have been appointed by the council to help manage the car park.
Whilst it appears that Euro Car Parks are entitled to help manage the car park, this DOES NOT automatically make it a location where PoFA can suddenly be used to invoke keeper liability.
In particular, Schedule 4 of PoFA confirms that point as Paragraph 3(1)(b) expressly excludes 'a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority' from being 'relevant land' for the purposes of PoFA.
The car park at Fullwell Cross Leisure Centre is not therefore defined as 'relevant land' for the purposes of PoFA and therefore liability can never be moved from the driver to the keeper as Euro Car Parks are continually stating.
I now invite POPLA to uphold this appeal.
Best wishes,
xxxxx xxxxxxxx
I'm not sure I would suggest to DVLA what their own response wording should be, but I think the wording about their failure to properly consider is great.
If you've reached the end of the DVLA process, you can refer it to an Independent Complaints Assessor. They won't "relitigate" the issue, but will look at whether DVLA's handling was sufficient.
Subject: Step 2 complaint – failure to consider PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 3 and unlawful release of keeper data
Dear Mrs Boucher,
This is a Step 2 escalation of my complaint concerning the DVLA’s release of registered keeper data to Euro Car Parks Ltd.
I am dissatisfied with the Step 1 response dated 22 December 2025, which fails to address the substance of the complaint and amounts to a fob-off.
My complaint was not about whether a Parking Charge Notice was issued, whether Euro Car Parks are members of an Accredited Trade Association, or whether a vehicle was parked. It was about whether DVLA lawfully released keeper data in circumstances where the operator is asserting keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 on land where that statute is expressly excluded.
The Step 1 response does not address PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 3 at all. There is no consideration of whether the land is “relevant land”. There is no consideration of whether the parking place is provided or controlled by a traffic authority. There is no analysis of council ownership, traffic authority status, or off-street parking provision. These are mandatory considerations because keeper liability under PoFA can arise only on relevant land.
Instead, the response relies on generic statements about “reasonable cause” and simply repeats assertions made by Euro Car Parks. That is not a lawful assessment. DVLA are required to make their own independent decision before releasing personal data. Accepting an operator’s assertions at face value, without applying the statutory exclusions enacted by Parliament, is a failure of that duty.
Reasonable cause cannot exist where the cause relied upon is legally unavailable. Euro Car Parks are asserting statutory keeper liability under PoFA. PoFA does not apply to a parking place provided by a traffic authority. Once paragraph 3(1)(b) applies, the statutory foundation for keeper liability falls away and DVLA data cannot lawfully be released for that purpose.
The Step 1 response also mischaracterises DVLA’s role by stating that DVLA do not regulate parking companies. That is irrelevant. This complaint concerns DVLA’s own statutory decision-making under Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 and DVLA’s obligations as a data controller. Those obligations cannot be delegated to the operator or the BPA.
The Step 1 response therefore demonstrates a failure to consider relevant matters, reliance on irrelevant matters, and a failure to apply the correct legal test. That amounts to maladministration.
I request that this Step 2 review addresses the following points directly and substantively:
1. Whether the land in question is a parking place provided or controlled by a traffic authority for the purposes of PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 3(1)(b).
2. Whether PoFA keeper liability is legally capable of applying at that location.
3. On what lawful basis DVLA considered “reasonable cause” to exist for the release of keeper data where PoFA is statutorily excluded.
4. Why these matters were not considered at Step 1.
If the Step 2 response again fails to engage with the statutory exclusion in PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 3, or simply repeats generic statements without applying the law, I will escalate the matter without further notice to the Independent Complaints Assessor as a case of maladministration. I will also refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office in relation to unlawful disclosure of personal data, and to my Member of Parliament with a view to further escalation to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
I expect a substantive Step 2 response that directly addresses the legal issues raised.
Yours sincerely,
[name]
Formal complaint – unlawful invocation of PoFA keeper liability on council-owned off-street parking
For the attention of the Monitoring Officer, London Borough of Redbridge
Dear Sir,
I am writing to raise a formal governance and legality complaint concerning parking enforcement at Fullwell Cross Leisure Centre, Ilford.
The car park is situated on land owned by the London Borough of Redbridge. The Council is a traffic authority. The site is therefore an off-street parking place provided by a traffic authority.
Despite this, the Council has contracted Euro Car Parks Ltd to manage the car park. Euro Car Parks are issuing private Parking Charge Notices and are obtaining DVLA registered keeper data. Crucially, their Notices to Keeper explicitly invoke Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and assert statutory keeper liability.
This is legally wrong.
Schedule 4 PoFA applies only to “relevant land”. Paragraph 3(1)(b) expressly excludes “a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority”. As the land is council-owned and provided by a local authority acting as a traffic authority, it is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA. Keeper liability cannot arise in law.
The fact that the Council has outsourced day-to-day management to a contractor does not change the legal status of the land. The parking place does not become “private land” for PoFA purposes merely because enforcement has been contracted out.
The Department for Transport has expressly criticised attempts by councils to enforce off-street parking “as if privately owned”, stating that a council “retains the status of a local authority providing off-street parking places”, that “the land remains regulated”, and that operating outside the statutory regime “would clearly go against the will of Parliament”. The DfT also made clear that local authorities were consciously excluded from Schedule 4 of PoFA.
By permitting Euro Car Parks to issue Notices to Keeper asserting PoFA keeper liability on council-owned off-street parking, the Council has allowed enforcement that misstates the law, misrepresents the keeper’s liability, and facilitates the obtaining and use of DVLA keeper data on a false legal basis.
I therefore request:1. Confirmation of the Council’s position on the legal status of the car park at Fullwell Cross Leisure Centre, including whether it is accepted to be a parking place provided by a traffic authority.
2. An explanation of the legal basis on which Euro Car Parks are being permitted to invoke PoFA Schedule 4 at this site.
3. Immediate steps to require Euro Car Parks to cease asserting keeper liability under PoFA at this location.
4. Confirmation of what action the Council will take to prevent further misuse of DVLA keeper data arising from this arrangement.
This complaint is raised as a matter of statutory compliance and public law governance. I would expect a substantive response from the Monitoring Officer rather than referral back to the parking contractor.
I look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully,
Formal complaint – misuse of DVLA keeper data and unlawful assertion of PoFA keeper liability (Euro Car Parks Ltd)
Dear Sir,
I am making a formal complaint regarding Euro Car Parks Ltd obtaining and using DVLA registered keeper data in circumstances where there is no lawful basis to do so.
The Parking Charge Notice and subsequent Notice to Keeper issued by Euro Car Parks Ltd relate to parking at Fullwell Cross Leisure Centre, Ilford. The land on which this car park is situated is owned by the London Borough of Redbridge. The Council is a traffic authority.
As a result, the car park is a parking place provided by a traffic authority. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 applies only on “relevant land”. Paragraph 3(1)(b) expressly excludes from relevant land any “parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority”. Accordingly, PoFA cannot apply at this location and keeper liability cannot arise in law.
Despite this, Euro Car Parks Ltd have issued a Notice to Keeper that expressly invokes Schedule 4 of PoFA, asserts that the notice is given under paragraph 9 of Schedule 4, and states that they have the right to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper. That assertion is legally false on this land.
Euro Car Parks Ltd have therefore obtained and processed my DVLA keeper data in order to pursue the registered keeper on the basis of PoFA keeper liability where PoFA is statutorily excluded. In those circumstances, “reasonable cause” for data release does not exist. The data has been used to pursue the wrong party under a misstated legal basis.
The fact that the Council has contracted out management of the car park does not alter the legal status of the land for PoFA purposes. A council-owned off-street parking place does not become “relevant land” simply because a private contractor issues Parking Charge Notices.
I ask the DVLA to:1. Investigate Euro Car Parks Ltd’s requests for keeper data in relation to this site and the legal basis relied upon when requesting that data.
2. Confirm whether Euro Car Parks Ltd represented to the DVLA that PoFA keeper liability applied at this location.
3. Consider enforcement action or sanctions for misuse of keeper data where PoFA has been falsely invoked.
4. Confirm what steps will be taken to prevent further releases of keeper data to Euro Car Parks Ltd for this site on a false statutory premise.
I attach copies of the Notice to Keeper showing the PoFA assertions relied upon.
I expect this complaint to be treated as a formal data misuse complaint and handled accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
I am the keeper 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 Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper 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. ECP has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. ECP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.