Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thanks both, I’ll discuss the admin fee issue with my friend to see where he wants to go.

DWMB2 - I set out more detail of the timetable of events at post 22 to get your further thoughts on the broader compensation issue that you commented on in post 21 on 1 May.

These more recent developments are all in the context of the comments made by b789 in the post of 1/11/25.

Thanks for the comments, always appreciated to get another perspective.

In answer to your point about cancellation of the PCN, I probably should have set out the full timeline by way of background so here is what was set out in the letter before claim

“You obtained my personal data from Lex Autolease Ltd as they are the Registered Keeper of vehicle registration ………..I am the hirer of this vehicle. Despite having no reasonable cause you then processed my data to issue a Parking Charge Notice (PCN)to me.

The parking session on 2 July 2025 had been pre-booked and pre-paid for by me in advance of parking at Gould Street, M4 4AP. You therefore never had reasonable cause to process my data at any stage. 

You issued a PCN to me, dated 25 July 2025. I should also point out that this Notice is not even compliant with Sch 4 PoFA 2012 as it did not enclose any of the hire documents referred to in the Notice. You therefore could never have transferred liability to me, as hirer, from the unknown driver.

I then lodged a complaint on 29 July 2025, which the private parking sector single code of practice says should also be treated as an appeal. You failed to do so.

Your response was to direct me to use your online appeal process which was completely unnecessary and both a further waste of my time together with providing now mounting evidence of your failure to follow any of the required processes.

On 8 August 2025, despite holding an unresolved complaint/appeal you then issued a final reminder to me.

On 18 August 2025, as I had no confidence in either your ability or desire to link the already existing complaint with the relevant PCN, I did then, in desperation, complete the online appeal form and try to link it to the previous complaint.

On 3 September 2025, in the continued absence of a response, I then issued a follow up, via your online contact form, as my complaint was still unresolved. On the same date you sent a response that failed to address any of the issues and I replied to it, again on the same date, reminding you of what had happened previously.

On 10 September 2025 I received a response from your appeals department to confirm that the PCN had been cancelled. This is unequivocal recognition that the PCN should never have been issued, as to cancel a notice at this early stage is virtually unheard of within an industry that is based on refusing appeals regardless of their merit.

On 26 September 2025 you then processed my data again to issue a Notice of Debt Collection for the previously cancelled PCN.

On 1 October 2025 I issued an email FTAO the Data Protection Officer at Bank which constituted a valid Subject Access Request (SAR).

On 17 October 2025 you responded providing further confirmation that the PCN was issued in error and apologised for any undue stress caused.

On 20 October 2025 I responded pointing out that this did not constitute a full reply to the SAR, the deadline for which expired on 31 October 2025.

Further reminders were issued to you by email on 5 November, 1 December 2025, 5 and 26 January 2026.

To date you have failed to respond to either the SAR of 1 October 2025 or my complaint of 29 July 2025.”

In terms of the admin charge, arguably Lex didn’t do anything wrong. They received what to them was a valid PCN to which they responded to transfer liability and then raised the admin charge allowed for in the contract on the hirer. I’m sure we could push back to Lex to say that it was subsequently cancelled but I'm not convinced they are under any obligation to refund the charge as they did incur the additional admin. As we were looking at a claim against Bank anyway, we felt it was more appropriate to seek recovery off them.

I would appreciate any further thoughts on how this impacts your earlier comments around any potential claim.

A further update on the Bank Parking saga and a request for thoughts or views on going forward.

1. DVLA - utter waste of time - stage 1 and 2 complaints done that just serve to highlight how desperate they are not to rock the boat with the operators who pay them millions to access our data. Their inaction was in turn supported by the Independent Complaints Assessors response to our escalation of the complaint. Effectively this has run its course as we aren’t proposing going further with this.

2. On 18/3/26, in the absence of any contact of any sort from Bank (since 17/10/25) we served a Letter before Claim on them. This finally prompted a response, dated 9/4/26. The response said

Dear ……
We (Bank Parking Limited) write in response to your letter before action received on 19 March
2026. This letter constitutes our formal response pursuant to paragraph 6(b) of the Practice
Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (the Practice Direction). We do not propose to
respond to your letter of claim on a point-by-point basis. Any failure to respond expressly to a
paragraph of, or point raised in, the letter of claim should not however be treated as
acceptance of the same.
Your Claim
We do not propose to respond to your letter of claim on a point-by-point basis. Any failure to
respond expressly to a paragraph of, or point raised in, the letter of claim should not however
be treated as acceptance of the same.

In your letter, you have alleged:
• Unlawful obtaining and processing of personal data
• Breach of UK GDPR
• Failure to respond to a Subject Access Request

Lawful Processing
It is denied that any personal data has been misused or processed unlawfully. UK Parking
Control adheres to the General Data Protection Regulation 2018 (UK GDPR) and processes
vehicle registration data on the legal bases of contract and legitimate interest. Personal data
was collected on the lawful basis of:
a) contract - where processing is necessary for the performance of the parking contract, and
b) legitimate interest - where processing this information is required to protect and enable
pursuit of a legitimate interests in ensuring the car park is effectively managed.
Once the data is no longer required, it will be destroyed in line with our retention policies. DVLA keeper data was accessed lawfully under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where there is reasonable cause to do so, namely, where a breach of terms and conditions has occurred. The details returned were that of Lex Autolease Limited, who subsequently provided your details as the nominated hirer of vehicle with registration ……… (the “Vehicle”) in the ordinary course of that process.
We would further note that any charge levied by Lex Autolease Limited as the registered keeper of the Vehicle for providing your details is a contractual matter between yourself and Lex Autolease Limited and does not give rise to any liability on the part of Bank Park.

Pre- Paid Parking Session
We were unable to locate any record of a parking session in respect of the Vehicle on 2 July 2025. Should you hold any evidence of such, including a booking confirmation or a payment receipt. We invite you to provide this for our consideration.
We further note your comments regarding the handling of correspondence in this matter.

Subject Access Request
We acknowledge receipt of your Subject Access Request. We wrote to you on 29 January 2026
requesting further information to verify your identity. To date we have not received a response to that request. We can confirm that all regulatory correspondence has been responded to. We remain ready to fulfil your SAR promptly on receipt of the required information.

With regards to the remedies set out in your correspondence, we respond as follows:
1. For the reasons set out above, it is denied that your data was unlawfully obtained or
processed Accordingly, no apology or admission is warranted.
2. We note that your letter indicates possible litigation. In such circumstances, we are
required to retain relevant data to deal with such legal proceedings. If it is confirmed
that no further legal action will be taken; data required for litigation purposes need not
be retained and will be destroyed in line with our retention policy.
3. Denied. The PCN has been cancelled, as such, there is no basis in law for any
compensation to be awarded and it is denied you are entitled to the same. Your
letter makes broad references to "distress", “anxiety” and "wasted time". These
allegations are vague and unspecific. We note that you have not provided any evidence
to substantiate these allegations. In any event, Bank Park denies that any "distress" or
"anxiety" was caused by its actions.

Next Steps
We trust that the information now provided has helped to clarify that Bank Park is not liable as alleged in your letter of claim.
Should you proceed with issuing Court proceedings, we will rigorously defend the claim and will seek an order for costs.

Yours Faithfully,
Bank Park Legal Team

We have not responded to this yet or paid the fee to register it with small claims court so before we pull the trigger any thoughts on the way forward and or the draft response below?

Dear Sir

Thank you for your letter of 9 April 2026.

I will follow your approach in that I will not respond on a point by point basis but similarly any failure to respond specifically to a given point should not be treated as acceptance.

Unlawful processing.
You claim that DVLA keeper data was accessed lawfully as you had reasonable cause to do so, namely where a breach of terms and conditions has occurred.

There was no such breach. The parking session on 2 July 2025 had been pre-booked and pre-paid for by me in advance of parking at Gould Street, M4 4AP.

The keeper details you sought were unlawfully obtained because a competent and diligent check of the relevant records would have shown that parking had been pre paid and therefore no terms and conditions were breached. There was, therefore, absolutely no basis on which to seek keeper details.

Pre paid parking.
The keeper in turn passed on my details to you, as the vehicle hirer. I was charged an admin fee for them doing so. This charge is directly as a result of you unlawfully accessing the keeper details through DVLA and contacting them. The contract I hold with Lex Allen was only brought into play in this instance due to your actions and to suggest otherwise is nonsensical. The admin fee is therefore rightly included within my claim.

Your inability to locate a record of the parking session is of course, of no surprise to me. It is merely the latest example of your ability to undertake competent basic administration.

I would however add that the previous production of this evidence led to your response of 10 September 2025, from your appeals department, to confirm that the PCN had been cancelled. It would seem that you have had ample opportunity to review the evidence.

In due course, the Court will order that both parties file and serve all evidence they intend to rely on. I confirm you will therefore receive all relevant evidence in advance of the hearing. 

Subject Access Request (SAR)
Concerning the SAR, I did not receive your correspondence of 29 January 2026. I would add that at the time of your writing you had already ignored my valid request for four months and were three months past the deadline to respond. I note that no action took place until you were contacted by the ICO.

I would therefore invite you to now respond fully to the SAR and stop hiding behind a request for further information as it is obvious that you have all the information that you need to be able to respond and indeed always have had.

Remedies
I note your comments but clearly you do accept that this process can result in stress given your response by email of 17 October 2025,-
“This PCN has been issued in error, please accept our apologies for this and any undue stress caused, we have cancelled the PCN and redacted your details.”
I am therefore content to allow the Court to decide on whether I am entitled to compensation for both material and non-material damage arising from your infringements of the Data Protection Act.

I have decided to continue with this claim, through the Small Claims Court, as being the appropriate course of action in these circumstances.

I require all correspondence to be sent to the address shown below

That was very much the conclusion I had come to but I haven’t been able to find anything definitive, legal context wise, to support that view and I don’t want to be just interpreting it in a way that suited the circumstances I’m looking at currently.

So it’s good to see someone else with considerably more experience than me, sharing that view.

Search mediation call and you’ll find a brief prepared by b789 which will run you through the process - it’s all a waste of time but you are expected to attend albeit using the brief it will last minutes at most - just another step along the path towards discontinuance.

Stick with it as regards fighting this one, the advice on here is spot on and if followed will be successful in this case. It’s important to hold your nerve, it can seem scary and it certainly isn’t a quick process but it will be successful in the end.

We all have to fight back against the parking scum and their pet debt collectors and legal wannabes- you’re in the right place to do so.

Put them through all the hoops until they finally give up and with the help of this forum, look for and exploit any opportunity to complain, maybe even seek compensation for any illegal actions, the support will be there if you have the will to see it through.

I’ve helped a couple of people using advice on here and have a couple ongoing currently, steel yourself and join the fight back.

The whole industry runs on the fear that threats of fines and potential court action creates in people who don’t have the knowledge of how to fight back. I know for example that it would work in relation to some of my family if I wasn’t there to reassure them.

It’s disappointing when someone finds their way here but then lets this fear over rule the advice and pays anyway. It will happen I guess, but hopefully only very infrequently.

I’ve been involved helping family/friends in a few cases, so only very limited experience compared to our regular posters but over time you do build confidence and get into the rhythm of the nature of the posts. Unfortunately for many I guess a visit here is a one off or at least only very occasional so I can understand why some find the responses more challenging.

But we do have to always remember that the posters here, provide their considerable time and expertise for free and with their help we build a bigger and stronger body of people who can help people fight back against what is an inherently dishonest industry.

A further update

We issued a SAR previously.

We didn’t get a response as such to the SAR but did get the following email response;-

“Good Afternoon,
 
This PCN has been issued in error, please accept our apologies for this and any undue stress caused, we have cancelled the PCN and redacted your details.
 
 
Kind Regards”

In response to this and to have a bit of fun with Bank we have responded as follows;-

“Thank you for your email of 17 October.

I would like to set out the series of events and correspondence that you have completely unnecessarily created for me, as a direct result of your incompetence.
You sought, without cause, to obtain the RK details for the vehicle from DVLA, as parking had already been prepaid.
You contacted the RK, a hire company, who provided my details and charged me an admin fee for having done so.
You then issued a PCN to me on 25/7/25. I should also point out that this Notice is not compliant with Sch 4 PoFA 2012 as it did not enclose any of the documents referred to in the Notice, providing further evidence of your incompetence.
I then lodged a complaint with you, which your private parking sector single code of practice says should also, where appropriate, be treated as an appeal.
Your response was to direct me to use your appeal process which was completely unnecessary and both a further waste of my time together with providing now mounting evidence of your collective incompetence.
So despite holding an unresolved complaint/appeal you then issued a final reminder dated 8/8/25.
On 18 August, as I had no confidence of your ability to link the already existing complaint with the relevant PCN, I did then, in desperation complete the online appeal form and try to link it to the previous complaint.
On 3/9/25 I had to issue a follow up, via your online contact form, as my complaint was still unresolved.
You provide a mindless response on 3/9/25, and I replied to you on the same date, reminding you of what had happened previously as you were clearly too stupid to make the link on your own.
On 10/9/25 you provided a response from your appeals department to confirm that the PCN had been cancelled. There has never been a proper response to my complaint, presumably because you don’t have anyone with the required intelligence to write one.
On 26/9/25 you then, with unsurprising stupidity, issued a Notice of Debt Collection for the previously cancelled PCN.
On 1/10/25 I issued an email FTAO the Data Protection Officer which constituted a valid Subject Access Request.
Your email response of 17/10/25 confirmed that the PCN was issued in error and apologised for any undue stress caused.

Please note that your email of 17/10/25 does not constitute a reply to what was a valid Subject Access Request, which remains outstanding with an initial timescale still running and which expires on 31 October 2025.

In an attempt to finally bring this to a conclusion I am now giving you the opportunity to provide me with compensation, both for the actual admin fee that I incurred and for the undue stress that you identified having caused me.

This whole process was completely unnecessary, had you have acted with proper due diligence and identified that I had prepaid for the parking for which you then incorrectly issued the PCN.

Dealing with you has been both stressful and enormously frustrating, due very much to your collective incompetence. I have spent a number of hours researching this process and identifying where you couldn’t be bothered to follow it correctly.

I require you to pay £70 in compensation to bring this matter to a conclusion. Please note this is not a negotiation, it is simply an opportunity for you to conclude the matter while limiting your direct and opportunity costs. Once confirmed, I will provide my details to you to enable you to make payment.

If you fail to respond with the next 14 days or do so without providing agreement to the proposed settlement figure, I will;-
Require a full response to the valid Subject Access Request, failure to do so will result in a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Require a proper response to the issues set out in my formal complaint. If you fail to do so I will report this matter to the BPA.
Require a full explanation by what is meant by “redacted your details”.
Be making a complaint to DVLA about misuse of your KADOE contract as you did not have reasonable cause to begin this process, had you have taken the necessary care to check that I had already prepaid.
Be complaining to my MP to get them involved post consultation and as further evidence of why this cowboy industry needs proper independent regulation.
Be Registering a claim with the Small Claims Court for my direct costs and any resulting fees to bring the case to the court.