Here are two formal email complaints you should submit immediately to Redbridge and the DVLA:
Address this one to monitoring.officer@redbridge.gov.uk and CC parking.services@redbridge.gov.uk and legal.services@redbridge.gov.uk and yourself:
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,
And for the DVLA, send the following to data.sharing@dvla.gov.uk and CC foicompliance@dvla.gov.uk and yourself:
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,