Free Traffic Legal Advice

The 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):

Quote

Subject: Feedback and Request for Reconsideration – DVLA Complaint Decision

Dear [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 Complaint

The 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 Analysis

Your 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 ICO

While 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 Considerations

The 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 Reconsideration

Given 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]

So, what are you asking? The letter tells you exactly what they want to know from you.

You can email back to the morons at Moorside at help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and cc yourself with the following:

Quote

For the attention of: the person with conduct of this matter

Re: Your defective reply to your own Letter of Claim – demand for proper PAPDC compliance

Dear 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 conduct
Who 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 breaches
You 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, and
5. 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 portals
I 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 sums
Your 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 steps
You 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]

Reply to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself with the following:

Quote

b]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 liability
2. 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 image
3. 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 breached
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner, establishing authority to enforce
5. 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 VAT
6. The full name and role of the person with conduct of this matter and their regulatory status/authorisation to conduct litigation

I 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]