Show Posts - meile

Hi, just received a response from ombundsman I am sorry to read you are dissatisfied with our decision on your complaint. Thank you for your patience as we reviewed all the information we have on your file.You say we mis framed your complaint the core of which is that DVLA failed to investigate credible and evidenced post-access misuse of your data by G24.This is captured in the summary of the complaint provided in our decision letter where we explain it is not for DVLA to investigate the actions of G24 including its use of your data. DVLA advised you the same in its responses to your complaint. The ICO can consider complaints about the use of personal information.You say the decision centres on DVLA signposting you where the issue is a complete failure of regulatory oversight.Our remit as dictated by law is to consider the administrative acts of public bodies when handling complaints. We did not find any indication DVLA failed to handle your complaint, it told you what it could do in the context of your complaint. DVLA is not a regulator in respect of data usage concerns or the actions of parking companies, as such it signposted you to the appropriate organisations to raise your concerns with.Our decisions are checked by managers. The information you provided does not indicate the decision or framing of your complaint is wrong. As we did not find any indication anything has gone wrong, we cannot take your complaint any further.We appreciate this may not be the closure you were hoping for and wish to assure you we consider all complaints brought to us fully in line with procedure and guidelines. You have now reached the end of our process and we do not consider there is anything further we should ask DVLA to do. We thank you for bringing us your concerns and wish you the very best for the future.Kind regards

Thank you for your response; a reply has been sent

Hi, got a letter before claim form Moorside Legal, should I ignore it?Many thanks! https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ig452R1Tf4se_z-0A4UwyOdBJeGjoEY1/view?usp=sharing

Quote from: b789 on 29 Nov, 2025 15:21The Ombudsman’s final letter reveals a shallow administrative review that fails to engage with the substance of your complaint and falls short of the Ombudsman’s own standards for public body oversight. It focuses narrowly on whether DVLA signposted you, while ignoring your actual grievance: that DVLA failed to investigate G24’s post-access misuse of your personal data — a duty it holds under the KADOE contract and its ongoing obligations as a data controller.Here is a formal response to the Ombudsman’s decision, suitable as a feedback challenge to the caseworker (to be sent within their one-month time limit):QuoteSubject: Feedback and Request for Reconsideration – DVLA Complaint DecisionDear [Caseworker's Name],Thank you for your letter regarding my complaint against the DVLA. I appreciate your time in reviewing the case. However, I must formally object to the outcome and request that the Ombudsman reconsider the decision not to take further action, for the following reasons.1. Misframing of My ComplaintThe summary presented in your decision does not reflect the actual substance of my complaint. My grievance has never been about whether the DVLA had reasonable cause to release my data. Nor have I suggested that the DVLA is responsible for adjudicating the parking charge itself.The core of my complaint is that the DVLA failed to investigate credible and evidenced post-access misuse of my data by G24 Ltd, in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and Schedule 2 of the KADOE contract — terms under which DVLA continues to act as a joint data controller, even after data is released.By refusing to investigate that misuse and instead offering template responses, the DVLA failed in its obligations as a public body and data controller. That failure is separate from the original data release decision and has not been addressed in your assessment.2. Oversight Failure and Incomplete AnalysisYour decision centres on whether the DVLA “signposted” me to the ICO or the IPC. While that may fulfil a basic procedural requirement, it is entirely beside the point. The issue was not poor signposting, but a complete failure of regulatory oversight. My complaint set out in detail:Material breaches of the PPSCoP by G24 Ltd, including:  • Pursuing a charge despite evidence of vehicle breakdown (Annex F1(c));  • Misstating the payment period in the NtK (Section 8.3.1);  • Escalating to debt collectors after ignoring a formal complaint.• The DVLA’s ongoing responsibility under the KADOE contract and UK GDPR to investigate and address such misuse.• The DVLA’s refusal to consider those breaches or conduct any form of enquiry, despite being notified.Your letter makes no reference to these breaches, nor does it assess whether the DVLA’s refusal to investigate was proportionate, reasonable, or consistent with its public duty and role as data controller.3. Misdirection Regarding the ICOWhile I accept that the ICO handles general data protection matters, my complaint was not about a generic misuse of personal data. It concerned the DVLA’s contractual and procedural failure to act in accordance with the terms under which it supplies personal data to private companies.That is not a matter for the ICO to resolve. It is a matter of maladministration by a government agency, and therefore squarely within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.4. Disregard for Public Interest ConsiderationsThe letter fails to recognise the broader public interest in this complaint. This case raises systemic concerns:• The DVLA's unwillingness to investigate misuse of sensitive personal data, even where clear Code of Practice breaches are identified;• The total absence of regulatory accountability in the KADOE process once data is released;• The fact that no redress mechanism exists for data subjects once a parking operator misuses their data, unless the DVLA chooses to act — which it demonstrably will not.This is not an isolated complaint. It is emblematic of a wider failure of oversight that affects thousands of motorists. Dismissing such a case on administrative grounds without reviewing the substance contributes to that systemic failure.5. Request for ReconsiderationGiven the above, I request that this complaint be reconsidered by a senior investigator who can properly evaluate whether the DVLA's refusal to act in the face of a documented misuse of data amounts to maladministration.If you maintain that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to assess whether the DVLA discharged its duties as a data controller under the KADOE contract, please confirm this in writing, with reference to your governing standards or exclusions.I remain prepared to escalate the matter further if required, and I thank you in advance for ensuring a more thorough review.Yours sincerely,[Your Full Name][Your Contact Details] Thank you, done!

Hello, I’ve received a response to my complaint, and the outcome does not appear favorable: Your complaint about the Driver and Vehicle Licensing AgencyThank you for bringing us your concerns about the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency(the DVLA). We are sorry to hear about the distress and financial loss you suffered afterDVLA shared your information with a parking company.We have completed our consideration of your complaint and we are writing to tell you theoutcome. To reach this decision we reviewed the information you provided. Having donethis, we have decided not to consider your complaint further.We understand that our decision may be disappointing, but we will explain the reasons forthis and the factors we have considered.Your complaintYou complain that DVLA mishandled the complaint you submitted in January 2025.Specifically, DVLA failed to investigate the misuse of your data by a parking company.As a result, you suffered distress and a financial loss. You have also lost confidence in theDVLA.By bringing your complaint to us you would like DVLA to investigate your concerns andacknowledge and apologise for its error.BackgroundYou submitted a complaint to DVLA in April 2025 about a parking company with access toDVLA data under a Keeper at Date of Event agreement. You are concerned with thelawfulness of the company’s use of your data after it obtained it from DVLA.Reasons for our decisionYou say DVLA’s responses did not engage with the concerns you raised, the complaint wasabout how the parking company had used your data. You also say DVLA failed to signpostyou.In its first response DVLA said the parking company was a member of an Accredited TradeAssociation for the parking industry, International Parking Community Ltd (IPC). Anyconcerns about the actions of the parking company can be raised with the IPC. This advicewas reiterated in its final response which signposted you to an independent reviewer andthe Information Commissioner’s Office for your data handling concerns.DVLA wrote to you again while you waited for a response from the reviewer. It explainedits role in the context of your complaint was limited to a consideration of whether therelease of your information to a third party met the reasonable cause provision.DVLA acted in accordance with UK Central Government Complaint Standards, October(2022), which say organisations should make sure they tell people about their right toescalate a complaint to the next stage if they are not satisfied with the response at theend of the organisation’s complaint process.Our principles say public bodies should aim to ensure that customers are clear about theirentitlements; about what they can and cannot expect from the public body; and abouttheir own responsibilities. We consider DVLA made you aware of what it could do in thecontext of your complaint. It also told you what you could do if you were concerned abouthow it and the parking company used your data.Data protection legislation, UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and theData Protection Act 2108 (Section 165), control how your personal information is used byorganisations. If a person remains dissatisfied with the response they receive from theorganisation who used the data the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the mostappropriate organisation to complain to. We have not seen any indication DVLA failed tohandle your complaint appropriately or signpost you and it was right for them to directyou to the ICO in this instance.In summary, we have decided we will not take further action on your complaint. We hopewe have explained the thorough consideration we have given to our decision and clearlyoutlined the reasons for it.If you have any feedback about our service or decision, then please let me know withinone month of the date of this letter, using the details at the top of this letter.We recognise that everyone has different needs and circumstances and these are likely toinfluence the way you access our service. If you need this letter in a different formatplease contact me to discuss your accessibility requirements.Please note there are some important details about how we use your information at thebottom of this letter.Yours sincerelyCaseworker

Quote from: b789 on 07 Nov, 2025 14:07So, what are you asking? The letter tells you exactly what they want to know from you. Thanks — just wanted to check I was on the right track before replying.Thanks for all the help so far, much appreciated.

Hello, got an email from Ombundsman: I am writing to introduce myself as the caseworker assigned your complaint. I am sorry to learn about your concerns about DVLA's handling of your complaint. I have copied your MP into this email for their information. Your complaint is now at step two of our process which considers several things including whether:the organisation may have got things wrong, and this has had, or continues to have, a negative impact on the person affected that hasn't been put rightyou complained, either to us or an MP, within a year of knowing about the issueyou have (or had) the option of taking legal action insteadthe impact of what happened was less severe and if so, whether we can resolve it quickly without the need for further investigationthe issue aligns with our organisational priorities or is in the wider public interest, for example if we are seeing a lot of similar complaintsyou have a protected personal characteristic, such as age, ethnic origin, sex or religion, that is underrepresented in the complaints we see and/or the issue mainly affects a marginalised group.If we decide we should investigate your complaint, we will let you know what will happen next.If we decide not to investigate your complaint, we will explain why. We will let you know if there are other options open to you and what these are. Based on what you have told us and what we may be able to consider and achieve through our process if we were to investigate your complaint. I have summarised your complaint as follows:You say DVLA mishandled the complaint you submitted in January 2025.Specifically, DVLA failed to investigate the misuse of your data by PCM.By bringing your complaint to us you would like DVLA to investigate your concerns and acknowledge and apologise for its error. You would also like it to make service improvements and pay you a financial remedy. I would be grateful if you could confirm whether this is correct. 

Quote from: b789 on 16 Oct, 2025 21:41You can email back to the morons at Moorside at help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and cc yourself with the following:QuoteFor the attention of: the person with conduct of this matterRe: Your defective reply to your own Letter of Claim – demand for proper PAPDC complianceDear Sirs,Your latest missive is an object lesson in how not to engage with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC) and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (PD-PACP). It neither addresses the requests set out in my response to your Letter of Claim, nor provides the documents you are obliged to disclose. Instead, you point me to a third-party web portal (which I have already stated I will not use), recite trade-association boilerplate about add-on charges, and then compound matters by demanding two different totals in the same letter (£170 and £340). This is not competent pre-action conduct.Identify the author and person with conductWho wrote that response? Kindly have the individual who authored it identify themselves in full, state their role, and provide their SRA number (if any). If the author is unauthorised to conduct litigation, confirm the supervising solicitor who is responsible, with their SRA number. Put another way: who at your firm is willing to put their name to that letter and take responsibility for it?Protocol and Practice Direction breachesYou have still failed to comply with PAPDC ¶¶3.1(a)–(d), 5.1–5.2, and PD-PACP ¶¶6(a) & 6(c). I asked—expressly and properly—for the core documents and information that any litigant must supply so the parties can understand each other’s position and attempt proportionate resolution. Instead of providing:1. the NtK relied upon for any alleged PoFA liability,2. the actual signage in place on the material date (not a stock image),3. the precise contractual clause(s) allegedly breached,4. the landowner authority/contract, and5. a coherent breakdown of the principal sum and the basis in law for any add-ons,—you offered none of it. You even asserted it is “unclear” why I would need to inspect your client’s standing to operate. It isn’t unclear; it is elementary. Locus standi is a threshold issue. If you cannot grasp why authority to contract and to sue matters, please pass this letter to a responsible adult at your firm who does.Web portalsI will not engage with any web portal. That position has been stated and is entirely reasonable. Your pre-action obligations are not satisfied by outsourcing disclosure to an “evidence” portal. Send the documents by email or post.Incoherent and inflated sumsYour letter simultaneously asserts an “outstanding balance” of £170 and demands payment of £340 within 7 days. Which is it? If you intend to place contradictory figures before the court, that is your prerogative, but do not expect the court to be impressed by arithmetic this poor.Your reliance on ATA codes to justify a £70 “debt recovery” add-on is legally irrelevant. Trade-association codes are not law and cannot expand recoverable damages under contract or statute. Courts have repeatedly disallowed such add-ons as an abuse (see, e.g., Excel v Wilkinson [2020], and numerous small-claims decisions following it). Any attempt to plead the extra £70 (or to double it, as your £340 demand suggests) will be challenged and treated as unreasonable conduct.Next stepsYou were already told that, upon receipt of a compliant Letter of Claim and the documents requested, I will seek advice and provide a full response within 30 days, as the PAPDC contemplates. Instead of complying, you sent marketing copy and payment links. If you issue proceedings without first complying with PAPDC and PD-PACP, I will apply for an immediate stay pursuant to PD-PACP ¶15(b), seek an order compelling the missing documents, and invite the court to impose appropriate sanctions and costs (see Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch); Daejan Investments Ltd v Park West Club (2003) EWHC 2872; Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations [2007] EWHC 855).Separately, your persistent refusal to comply with pre-action obligations, your attempt to force a portal, your presentation of contradictory balances, and your pursuit of unrecoverable add-ons will be the subject of a report to the SRA. This correspondence and your original Letter of Claim will be produced in support if you proceed to issue.What you must now do (14 days)Within 14 days, provide by email or post:• the NtK relied upon (showing strict PoFA compliance, if alleged),• contemporaneous photographs of the signage in situ on the material date,• the exact contractual clause(s) allegedly breached,• the landowner contract/authority to operate and to litigate, and• a clear, lawful breakdown of the principal sum (with the legal basis for any sum above the face value of the PCN, which is denied).Failing that, treat this as your final opportunity to rectify your non-compliance. If you remain unable to understand how litigation works, escalate this file to someone at your firm who does.Yours faithfully,[Your name][Your contact details] Replied, thank you!

Hi, not sure if I should ignore the email I have just received from Moorside Legal:We write in relation to the above matter. Please see the attached. Our client has instructed us to collect the outstanding balance of £170.00 in relation to an unpaid Parking Charge Notice. Please visit https://www.pay-my-pcn.co.uk/live-3sc-user/ and quote reference: **** to review evidence as requested. The original amount of the PCN was £100.00. As outlined in the notice, a reduced amount of £60.00 would have been accepted as full and final settlement if payment had been received within 14 days from the date of issue. Unfortunately, as no payment was received within that time frame, the opportunity to pay the reduced amount has now expired. As a result of continued non-payment and additional charges, the balance has increased and now stands at £170.00.The additional charge which has been levied on your Parking Charge of £70 is the amount set out in both the British Parking Association and International Parking Community Codes of Practice as the amount which may be added to a Parking Charge when a Parking Charge remains unpaid and when further recovery is required. Our Client is a member of the International Parking Community which is a government approved Accredited Trade Association (ATA) for Private Parking. Our Client adheres to the ATA’s Code of Practice. The £70 does not represent the cost of recovery but is a reasonable amount in relation to the Parking Charge amount, in order to encourage early payment of the Parking Charge without the need for debt recovery. It is a fair amount set by our Client’s government-approved Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice. There are however also costs incurred by our client in relation to debt recovery services.It is unclear why you would need to inspect any agreement between our client and the landowner as you are not party to that agreement, not could it aid your dispute or any potential defence.You have already made representation to our client, who have responded accordingly. We cannot overturn their decision. In our client’s letter rejecting your appeal you were offered the opportunity to refer your appeal to an Independent Adjudication Service provided by our clients Accredited Trade Association. You did not take this step and we must advise that all appeal avenues have now expired. Considering the evidence we hold we have to advise that the PCN and its associated processes are in line with industry standards and are compliant with our clients Accredited Trade Association’s code of practice.By entering and parking the vehicle on our client's private land, you agreed to enter into a contract with our client and to be bound by the terms and conditions of that contract. The terms and conditions were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent places within the car park. Due to your failure to comply with the terms and conditions, our client has issued the PCN therefore if we are instructed to issue a claim the reason would be for Unpaid parking charges/ breach of contract. We ask that you make the full payment of £340.00 within 7 days of receipt of this email.  You can make payment in the following ways:  Contact us on 0330 822 9950 (our opening times are Monday- Friday 9:00- 17:00); portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk - Login to our portalhttps://pay.moorside.legal - Quick Pay  If you fail to respond or make payment, we may be instructed by our client to issue legal proceedings against you. This will incur further costs and fees that will be added to the outstanding balance. You may wish to seek independent legal advice.    Yours sincerely,Moorside Legal

Quote from: b789 on 25 Sep, 2025 13:58Reply to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself with the following:Quoteb]Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim Ref: [reference number][/b]Dear Sirs,Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.As a firm of supposed solicitors, one would expect you to be capable of crafting a letter that aligns with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions do not exist for decoration—they exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You might wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), stipulate that prior to proceedings, parties should have exchanged sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 helpfully clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.Your template letter mentions a “contract”, yet fails to provide one. This would appear to undermine the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It’s difficult to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue when your side declines to furnish the very document it purports to enforce.Please be aware, I will not engage with any web portal should you attempt to direct me to one. I will only respond to any communication from you by email or post. Your choice.I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that confirms any PoFA 2012 liability2. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists between your client and the driver, in the form of an actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date, not a generic stock image3. The exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract(s) which is (are) relied upon that you allege to have been breached4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner, establishing authority to enforce5. A breakdown of the charges claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” fee includes VAT6. The full name and role of the person with conduct of this matter and their regulatory status/authorisation to conduct litigationI am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.Yours faithfully,[Your name] Thank you, done

Quote from: DWMB2 on 25 Sep, 2025 12:51Is that 1 page the sum total of what they've sent? yes

Here is a link to the document, I can not see an option of attaching it on here https://drive.google.com/file/d/19lKfatvsEA4Byo8b3m-qUqnXndEPVmF-/view?usp=sharing

Hello again,Just received a 'Letter before claim' from Moorside Legal informing that Parking Control Management UK Limited has instructed to collect the outstanding balance on their behalf. They are a law firm authorised and regulated by the Solicitors regulation authority.Should I react or leave it? Thank you once again for your valuable advise

Thank you, took me a few good ours, but done

I got a reply from my MP, but I’m not sure how to put together the complaint for the Ombudsman, thank you in advnce for your guidance which is invaluable:Thank you for taking the time to write to me regarding your complaint with the DVLA. I am concerned to hear of the issues you are experiencing and I am willing to do what I can to help. I understand that you would like your case referred to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, in order for me to refer your case, please could you provide me with your final stage complaint response. Additionally, to be able to refer a complaint to the PHSO, you will need to complete the relevant form (see ‘Complaint form for UK government services’ here: https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/making-complaint/complain-us-getting-started/complaint-forms). If you send me the completed form, leaving the section for an MP blank, I can refer this to the PHSO.