Show Posts - Stan87

Latest is that I have a letter from DCBL and final reminder. Can you confirm I'm just ignoring these? Thanks

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.Parking Charge Number (PCN): VCS23023633Vehicle Registration: HG65VMXDate Issued: 08/05/2025Appeal Outcome: DismissedThe Adjudicators comments are as follows:"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display throughout the site and seemingly visible in the vicinity of the vehicle, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed stop otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms as alleged by the Operator. I am satisfied on the evidence provided that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this site. I am further satisfied as to the location of the contravention, that the correct vehicle has been identified stopped at the time suggested in the images provided and that in the circumstances the correct Appellant is pursued. I have considered the correspondence sent to the Appellant I am satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice was correctly served and that the correspondence complies with current guidelines.I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed."As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.You should contact the operator within 28 days to make payment of the charge. Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.Yours Sincerely,The Independent Appeals Service

Reply from DVLA....Thank you for your email of 4 June about the release of information from our vehicleregister and the dispute you have with the parking company Vehicle Control Services (VCS)Ltd. Your case has been escalated to step 2 of our complaints procedure and I have beenasked to reply.We aim to reply within 10 working days. However, on this occasion, it has taken us longeras our current work volumes are higher than usual. Please accept my apologies for this.I understand you feel that Vehicle Control Services (VCS) Ltd did not meet therequirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, and that they havebreached the Private Parking Single Code of Practice. I fully appreciate you feel thatalthough the company may have had reasonable cause to request your information, thiswas then misused. However, I must advise that it is not a matter for the DVLA to decide onthe merits of individual cases or to arbitrate in any civil disputes between motorists andprivate companies or other enforcement agencies. We cannot regulate any aspect of acompany’s business. Any representations should be made to the landowner or their agent.As you are aware, the law provides for the release of information from our records in certaincircumstances. Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing)Regulations 2002 permits the disclosure of information from vehicle records held by theSecretary of State for Transport to those who can demonstrate a reasonable cause forreceiving it. While reasonable cause is not defined in legislation, the government’s policy isthat requests should relate to the vehicle or its use following incidents where there may beliability on the part of the driver.I should explain that overall responsibility for off-street parking sits with the Ministry ofHousing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). This includes matters relating tothe applicability of the keeper liability measures provided by the POFA 2012. I can adviseyou that there will be significant changes within the private parking sector with the creationof a statutory Code of Practice and a single independent appeals service. MHCLG isresponsible for the implementation of these new measures. You may wish to raise anyconcerns you may have with them. They can be contacted by emailingparking@communities.gov.ukIt may also help to explain that the DVLA’s role in this context is to consider whether therelease of information to third parties requesting the data meets the reasonable causeprovision 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 parkingcompanies is considered to be a reasonable cause.The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is fully aware of how data held on our recordsis released. The ICO’s opinion regarding the lawful basis for the processing of vehiclekeeper data is published here. This includes information regarding the sharing of data withcar park management companies under Article 6(1) of the UK General Data ProtectionRegulation (GDPR). It also explains that paragraph 11 of Schedule 4 of the Protection ofFreedoms Act (POFA) 2012 provides car park management companies with an enforceablelegal right to claim charges from vehicle keepers.Recipients of information from our records are bound by contract and subject to audit. Thesupporting evidence relevant to each request must be held and stored securely by thecompany. Anyone making a false declaration to obtain information may be leavingthemselves open to prosecution under data protection laws. As my colleague hasexplained, VCS, separately from us, is the data controller of each item of data receivedfrom us from the point of receipt. VCS has a duty to comply with data protection legislationand any data protection principles in relation to any further processing.As you are aware, private parking management companies wishing to request vehiclekeeper information must be members of an appropriate Accredited Trade Association(ATA). This helps ensure that requesters are legitimate companies operating in line with apublished code of practice that promotes fair treatment of the motorist and ensures thatthere is a clear set of standards for operators that cover, among other things, signage,appeals processes, and methods of contacting drivers. The Government is very muchaware of public concern about the enforcement practices adopted by some parkingmanagement companies. We are working closely with the parking sector to improveprocedures and to encourage compliance with relevant codes of practice. The ATA carriesout its own checks before allowing companies to become members and monitors ongoingcompliance with the code of practice.As previously advised, UK Car Park Management Ltd is a member of the InternationalParking Community (IPC). Under the circumstances, I suggest that you contact the IPCabout this matter, as the DVLA cannot comment on the issues you have raised regardingcompliance with the code of practice. It is the IPC’s responsibility to make sure theirmembers are operating according to the code of practice available atwww.theipc.info/publicationsSection 18 (page 30) of the code of practice covers monitoring compliance. If the IPC findthat VCS have not followed the correct procedures, they will take the appropriate action. Asmy colleague has explained, this could mean that the parking company is suspended orexpelled. During which time no data will be provided to them by the DVLA. As noted onsection 18.11, the ATAs inform the DVLA and the other ATA immediately if an operator issuspended, expelled from membership.If a company does not adhere to their contract with us, it could be suspended independentlyof any ATA investigation. I can assure you our audit arrangements ensure that requestershave appropriate internal controls in place to protect the information provided. Checks arealso conducted by the Government Internal Audit Agency (GIAA) on our behalf. Wherecompliance issues are identified, we will take appropriate action to ensure the matter isrectified.While I understand your concerns and that you feel that we have not complied with ourduties as the data controller, there is no evidence that VCS has breached any statutoryprovisions or other legal requirement affecting the Keeper At Date Of Event (KADOE)service. Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 could be applicable at the site in question, as theenforcement scheme at Liverpool John Lennon Airport is not operated under airportbyelaws.In closing, I can assure you we have followed the correct procedures in releasing your dataand we cannot become involved in the dispute that has now arisen between you and theparking company. VCS are responsible for making decisions about how the personal datathey hold is handled, ensuring compliance with data protection regulations including the UKGDPR. If you cannot resolve this matter through appealing to VCS or via the IPC 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 enclosedleaflet, (MIS 582), which outlines the remit of the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA).Please note, an ICA cannot look at complaints about legislation, government, departmentalor agency policy.I must also advise that an ICA would review the handling of your enquiry but if you are notsatisfied with the way that we (or indeed the other parties concerned) have handled yourdata, you should contact the Information Commissioner’s Office. Further information andtheir contact details can be found at ico.org.uk

I take it you're not a fan of the IAS! Submitted.Note their email was titled Prima Facie Case Recieved which isn't a good start and doesn't give you much faith.

I didn't realise the IAS appeal was a two stage process.The Parking Operator should have uploaded sufficient evidence to show that you are, on the face of it, liable to pay the charge.You will then have TWO options:1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the evidence by making any representations that you consider to be relevant as to the lawfulness of the charge any by uploading any extra photographs or other evidence that you may have. After you submit your response, and the operator doesn't provide any more information you will not have the ability to add to or amend your submission. If the operator provides more information or evidence you will then have another chance to respond.- OR -2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you think you do not need to add any more information or evidence, for example if you consider that the information provided is not capable of showing that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge, then you may choose this option. Neither party will have the opportunity of making more representations and the Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable for the parking charge.Presumably I'm taking the 2nd option?

Ok submitted. I'll let you know when they reject it!

Thanks. Interestingly the IAS website does not appear to recognise the CN reference.

Appeal rejected as expected - see attached [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thanks. I've done that.Out of interest was theirs the standard response you expected?

Ok done the Step 2 DVLA . And in the meantime VCS have replied - see attached. [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Sorry I thought I'd attached it [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I have received a DVLA response which I suspect is a standard reply.

All submitted. I'll let you know when they reject it!

Thanks for the advice. Can I just check please. I'm putting the 3 paragraphs from your original reply in my appeal to myparkingcharge website, not anything from the second reply?I've been down this path before helping my son out with a parking charge 3 years ago so I know about the long drawn out process before they drop it at the last moment!If you can confirm that would be great and then I'll do the DVLA complaint too.Thanks

Thanks for all that advice. So I'll create a reply to them based on B789 wording and complain to DVLA too.