Show Posts - plad

Thanks for your very detailed step-by-step process as to how to stop these rogue operators getting my hard earned money.I have a few concerns however1. I am concerned that there may be CCTV footage showing me exiting and re-entering the vehicle through the driver’s door. While the UKPS website only displays images of the vehicle when I enter my PCN reference, is it possible that such footage could still be used as evidence if the matter were to go to court?2. As I have a young family, I want to avoid causing them unnecessary stress. I’m particularly anxious about the possibility of bailiffs visiting my home to demand payment. Since I’m usually not home until late in the evening, I worry that a family member might answer the door and feel pressured by their tactics. My past experience with TV licensing officers was manageable—they left without issue when I declined their services—but I assume bailiffs would not be so easily dismissed. How likely is it that I would have to deal with bailiffs coming to my property?   Quote from: b789 on 01 Jun, 2025 21:15Now that we've seen the back of the NtK, we can confirm that the operator has not complied with all the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the Keeper liable, even though they have said that they intend to. This is a breach of the PPSCoP and therefore a breach of the KADOE contract with the DVLA, which means that they are using your Keeper data unlawfully.As you are dealing with an IPC member, there is little to be gained by appealing except to initiate the process, even though it will be rejected. If you follow the advice, you won't be paying a penny to this rogue operator. However, it will be a protracted affair lasting anything from 9 months to a year+ before it is over.First, you need to appeal, but ONLY as the Keeper. There is no legal obligation to identify the driver.There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:QuoteI am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. UKPS has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. UKPS have no hope should you be so stupid as to try and litigate this matter, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.You should also make a formal complaint to the DVLA because they are using your data unlawfully. Here’s how to make a DVLA complaint:• Go to: https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/complaints• Select: “Making a complaint or compliment about the Vehicles service you have received”• Enter your personal details, contact details, and vehicle details• Use the text box to summarise your complaint or insert a covering note• You will then be able to upload a file (up to 19.5 MB) — this can be your full complaint or supporting evidenceThat’s it.The DVLA is required to record, investigate and respond to every complaint about a private parking company. If everyone who encounters a breach took the time to submit a complaint, we might finally see the DVLA take meaningful action—whether that means curtailing or removing KADOE access altogether.For the text part of the complaint the webform could use the following:QuoteI am submitting a formal complaint against UKPS Limited, an IPC AOS member with DVLA KADOE access, for breaching the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) after obtaining my personal data.While the Operator may have had reasonable cause at the time of their KADOE request, their subsequent misuse of my data—through conduct that contravenes the PPSCoP—renders that use unlawful. The PPSCoP forms an integral part of the DVLA’s governance framework for data access by private parking firms. Continued access is conditional on compliance.The DVLA, as data controller, is obliged under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 to investigate and take enforcement action when data is misused following release. This complaint is not about whether the data was obtained lawfully at the outset, but whether its subsequent use breached the terms under which it was provided.I have prepared a supporting statement setting out the nature of the breach and the Operator’s actions, and I request a full investigation into this matter. I have attached the supporting document.Please acknowledge receipt and confirm the reference number for this complaint.Then you could upload the following as a PDF file for the formal complaint itself:QuoteSUPPORTING STATEMENTComplaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoPOperator name: UKPS LimitedDate of PCN issue: 23/05/2025Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my personal data by UKPS Limited, who obtained my keeper details from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) contract.While UKPS may have had reasonable cause to request my data initially, their subsequent use of it constitutes unlawful processing. This is because they have acted in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)—a mandatory condition of DVLA data access.UKPS issued a Notice to Keeper dated 23/05/2025, which attempts to transfer liability to me as the registered keeper. However, the NtK fails to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), and in particular paragraph 9(2)(f), which is a mandatory requirement in all cases where keeper liability is claimed.Statutory requirement under PoFA paragraph 9(2)(f):“warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid.”Wording used by UKPS instead:“As the contracted agent, the creditor, UKPS Limited, has the right to recover unpaid charges from the registered keeper if the parking charge remains unpaid after 28 days, or the name and address of the driver is not known.”This wording is not compliant with PoFA. It fails to:• Warn the keeper that the right to recover is conditional on all applicable conditions being met under PoFA.• Set out the start of the 28-day period (“beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given”).• Use mandatory statutory language, which is a requirement for the creation of keeper liability.In short, UKPS has misrepresented the legal position, wrongly suggesting that they automatically acquire the right to recover the parking charge from the keeper, regardless of whether PoFA conditions are met. This is a direct breach of PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d), which states:“The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.”Because UKPS has failed to include the mandatory wording required by PoFA, they cannot rely on Schedule 4 to pursue the registered keeper. Continuing to do so using DVLA data constitutes misuse of that data, in breach of the conditions under which it was released.These are not minor or technical breaches. They show a clear disregard for the standards required under the current single Code. As a result, the operator is no longer entitled to use the keeper data they obtained from the DVLA, because the purpose for which it was provided (a fair and lawful pursuit of a charge under the Code) no longer applies.The DVLA remains the Data Controller for the data it releases under KADOE, and is therefore responsible for ensuring that personal data is not misused by third parties. This includes taking action against AOS operators who breach the conditions under which the data was provided. I am therefore asking the DVLA to investigate this breach and to take appropriate action under the terms of the KADOE contract.This may include:• Confirming that a breach has occurred• Taking enforcement action against the operator•Suspending or terminating their KADOE access if warrantedI have attached relevant supporting material with this statement. Please confirm receipt and provide a reference for this complaint. I am also happy to provide further information if required.Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]Date: [INSERT DATE]

Quote from: jfollows on 01 Jun, 2025 19:11NtK - Notice to Keeper.The thing you’ve posted the front side of earlier. [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I don't believe I received a NtK unless you are referring to the back of the PCN? All that is on the back is a section on how to pay, appeal and transfer of liability. Quote from: b789 on 01 Jun, 2025 17:24But you haven't received any "fine". You have received a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking company for an alleged breach of contract by the driver.This is well known trap at this location. If you are going to fight this, you need to understand that it will take up to a year, or possibly even longer to reach its conclusion.For now, please show us the back of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) you received. If you can get any photos of the general layout of the area the driver parked in, showing signs, or the lack of them, would be useful. Also, the wording on any signs that are there would be useful too.

Hi all - received a PCN from UKPS for exceeding the permitted parking time. I have read on here and elsewhere that appealing is pointless, even though I believe I have a strong argument for unclear signage (see attached photos). I was wishing to get your opinions and I am willing to pay the fine if I have no grounds to stand on. My main argument is - Upon reviewing the signage at the location, I observed that the sign stating a 90-minute time limit for parking is mounted above the entrance to a tunnel, leading into a covered parking area. Given its positioning, it is reasonable to interpret that this time restriction applies specifically to vehicles parked within the tunnel or covered area, and not to those parked outside of it.In my case, I parked outside of the tunnel, in an area where there were no visible or clearly placed signs indicating any time limit. As such, there was no clear or unambiguous notice that the same 90-minute restriction applied to this external area. [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]