Free Traffic Legal Advice

I added my wife's car onto my TFL account the day before she traveled through the tunnel but didn't realise I also had to add it to Auto Pay.

She's now received the £90 PCN.

Before we attempt a politely challenge via the TFL website stating I didn't realise I had to add it to Auto Pay, is there anything else to consider?

I've tried getting a report from TFL online showing the date the car was added to the main account but it doesn't look possible

My Auto Pay account was opened a few years ago when ULEZ expanded and I don't remember having to go through 2 steps when adding my car originally, maybe I'm just forgetful!

thanks

No response to the POPLA complaint, I've chased them today

DVLA responded to the step 2 complaint as follows:

Dear
Thank you for your email of 21 May about the release of information from our vehicle register and the dispute you have with the parking company Saba Park Services UK Ltd. Your case has been escalated to step 2 of our complaints procedure and I have been asked to reply.
We aim to reply within 10 working days. However, on this occasion, it has taken us longer as our current work volumes are higher than usual. Please accept my apologies for this.
I understand you feel that Saba Park Services UK Ltd did not meet the requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, and that they have breached the Private Parking Single Code of Practice. I fully appreciate you feel that although the company had reasonable cause to request your information, this was then misused. However, I must advise that it is not a matter for the DVLA to decide on the merits of individual cases or to arbitrate in any civil disputes between motorists and private companies or other enforcement agencies. We cannot regulate any aspect of a company’s business. Any representations should be made to the landowner or their agent.
I should explain that overall responsibility for off-street parking sits with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). This includes matters relating to the applicability of the keeper liability measures provided by the POFA 2012. Therefore, you may wish to direct your complaint to MHCLG for consideration. They can be contacted by emailing parking@communities.gov.uk
It may also help to explain that the DVLA’s role in this context is to consider whether the release of information to third parties requesting the data meets the reasonable cause provision under Regulation 27(1)(e) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002. As you are aware, the release of information to private car parking companies is considered to be a reasonable cause.
Landowners would have great difficulty in enforcing their rights if motorists were able to park with impunity on private land. The contact details of the registered keepers of vehicles are provided as a starting point to allow alleged infringements of private parking terms to be followed up.
This disclosure is in keeping with data protection principles and the Information Commissioner (ICO) is aware that information held by the DVLA can be used in this way.
The ICO’s opinion regarding the lawful basis for the processing of vehicle keeper data is published here.
Recipients of information from our records are bound by contract and subject to audit. The supporting evidence relevant to each request must be held and stored securely by the company. Anyone making a false declaration to obtain information may be leaving themselves open to prosecution under data protection laws. As my colleague has explained, Saba Park Services UK Ltd, separately from us, is the data controller of each item of data received from us from the point of receipt. Saba Park Services UK Ltd has a duty to comply with data protection legislation and any data protection principles in relation to any further processing.
As my colleague has also explained, Saba Park Services UK Ltd are a member of the British Parking Association (BPA). Section 18 (page 30) of the code of practice (available here) covers monitoring compliance. If the BPA find that Saba Park Services UK Ltd have not followed the correct procedures, they will take the appropriate action. As previously advised, this could mean that the parking company is suspended or expelled. During which time no data will be provided to them by the DVLA. As noted on section 18.11 of the code of practice, the ATAs inform the DVLA and the other ATA immediately if an operator is suspended, expelled from membership.
In closing, I can assure you we have followed the correct procedures in releasing your data and we cannot become involved in the dispute that has now arisen between you and the parking company. Saba Park Services UK Ltd are responsible for making decisions about how the personal data they hold is handled, ensuring compliance with data protection regulations including the UK General Data Protection Regulation GDPR. If you cannot resolve this matter through appealing to Saba Park Services UK Ltd or via the BPA’s process, or through contact with MHCLG, you have the option of seeking independent legal advice. Ultimately it would be for a court to determine the validity of any claim.
This brings the DVLA procedure to an end. Further options can be found in the enclosed leaflet, (MIS 582), which outlines the remit of the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA).
Please note, an ICA cannot look at complaints about legislation, government, departmental or agency policy.
I must also advise that an ICA would review the handling of your enquiry but if you are not satisfied with the way that we (or indeed the other parties concerned) have handled your data, you should contact the Information Commissioner’s Office. Further information and their contact details can be found at ico.org.uk
Yours sincerely
DVLA Complaints Team
Find out about DVLA’s online

Ok thank you, the complaint has been submitted

Thanks b789. Following this information do I need to act on anything in advance of the POPLA decision?

b789, finally draft Response to the operator’s evidence below, the attached word document is formatted:

Again, thanks in advance for any suggested amendments


NtK is Non-compliant
The NtK fails to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, paragraph 9(2)(h), because it wrongly names Saba Park Services UK Ltd as the creditor. However, the landowner (TTL Properties Ltd), as confirmed in the landowner authorisation provided by Saba, is the only party legally entitled to be the creditor.
I reiterate that Saba’s NtK is not PoFA compliant because it has failed specify a "period of parking" as required by paragraph 9(2)(a). A single observation of a stationary vehicle is not a "period of parking." Even if multiple photos show the same timestamp or a short sequence, that still does not constitute a proper period. The courts have made it clear that there must be evidence of actual parking activity over a meaningful interval. This was confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where the judge ruled that a single timestamp or momentary observation is not sufficient and therefore the creditor cannot rely on PoFA to hold the Keeper liable.
Saba have failed to give good reason why their NtK is compliant
Breach of Clause 8.4.1(b) and Annex C.1.1 of the PPSCoP.
A detailed appeal was delivered by recorded post to Saba on 23 March 2025. Proof of delivery is shown on pg6 of Saba’s evidence pack.  Saba failed to respond with a rejection or provide a POPLA code within the time period, as required under Clause 8.4.1(b) and Annex C.1.1 of the PPSCoP.
Saba have failed to address why they did not respond within 28 days. Pg7 of Saba’s evidence: On 04/04/25 We had an email from Jaime (email address appeals@paymyparkingcharge.com) stating our account was on hold for 7 days and then a further email on 21/05/25 from Jaime (different email address customerservices@zzps.co.uk) apologising that the “the account has progressed incorrectly”. We don’t require an apology for the breach of the PPSCoP from ZZPS, we require the cancellation of the NtK from Saba due to them not responding to the appeal within 28 days. The first response we had from Saba was dated 14/05/25 (pg18 of evidence) where they stated “they were not reviewing your correspondence as an appeal”. The PPSCoP makes clear that any correspondence raising issues about a PCN must be treated as an appeal or complaint, not ignored or arbitrarily diverted to a debt collector
A POPLA code was not received until 27/05/25 from the debt collector ZZPS instead of Saba. We have had no formal explanation of why no POPLA code was issued within the time limit.
Saba unlawfully escalated the charge on 22 April 2025 to debt collection (ZZPS) while the appeal process remained unresolved and without offering access to independent adjudication. Saba unlawfully transferred the charge on 19 May 2025 to enforcement agents (GCTT) while the appeal process remained unresolved.

Saba have failed to address why they unlawfully transferred the charge to debt recovery while the appeal process remained unresolved

Saba cannot rely on PoFA to pursue the registered keeper; only the driver could ever be liable (under contract law), and only if the land were not under statutory control (which it is).

Saba have failed to address this in their POPLA conclusion. Saba previously admitted in correspondence that no penalty has been issued under railway byelaws and that they are pursuing a contractual Parking Charge only. Therefore, this NtK may only be pursued against the driver, not the registered keeper. Saba were informed of this in my original appeal. This is land subject to statutory control and therefore PoFA does not apply. Saba have failed to engage with this point or to provide any legal justification for continuing to pursue a registered keeper on such land.

In their conclusion, Saba have stated “Mrs X instead has hyper focused on the technicalities surrounding the issuing of the Parking Charge, despite being given ample opportunity to provide a basis of appeal within the appeals process”

1. The appeals process was non-compliant for the reasons given above
2. The basis of appeal was given by Mrs X in appeal correspondence
3. In stating “hyper focusing on the technicalities” – by technicalities do Saba mean the terms and clauses of the PPSCoP and Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 under which Saba should legally adhere to?  If so I’m glad someone is “hyper focusing” on the terms

Part 2(b)

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

b789

Saba did include a copy of their contract with the landowner in with the many files of their evidence pack although it doesn't appear to be referenced, I will now attach Appendix B which contains multiple TFL parking boundary maps, North Greenwich included. (Large files so posting in 3 parts)

Part 1



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Part 3

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]