Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote from: FearVolhyrr on September 01, 2025, 02:01:26 pm

I have received a response, however I seem to be unable to attach anything to my post here, any ideas what is going on?

In order to ensure the site remains free of charge, we have very limited space for uploads, which is why the thread titled "READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide" advises using a third party service such as Imgur to add images etc. - if you are unable to upload directly to here, it's likely due to the upload limit being reached.

This situation raises immediate red flags regarding data handling and liability. If the debt recovery letter is addressed to your mother, who is not the registered keeper, this is procedurally suspect. If she was not the driver and not the registered keeper, PCM has no lawful basis to pursue her unless she was explicitly named as driver and accepted liability.

Was your mother ever named in correspondence or online appeal as the driver? Does the letter reference the original PCN number and vehicle registration? Is your mother's name on the V5C (vehicle logbook)?

I would suggest the Keeper complains (preferably by email) to PCM and CC the DPO and yourself with the following:

Quote

Subject: Formal Notice – Unlawful Disclosure of Personal Data and Procedural Misconduct

To: Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd 
Re: PCN Reference [Insert Reference] – Vehicle Registration [Insert VRM]

You are hereby put on notice of a serious data protection breach and procedural irregularity in your handling of the above-referenced PCN.

The initial appeal was submitted by the registered keeper, whose name and address you obtained via DVLA under Regulation 27(1)(e) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002. No IAS appeal was submitted. At no point was any other individual named or identified as the driver.

Despite this, you have now caused a third-party debt recovery agent—TRACE—to send a letter to my wife, who is neither the registered keeper nor the driver. She has no connection to this matter and has never communicated with you. This is a blatant breach of the UK GDPR and a misuse of personal data.

You are required to respond within 14 days with:

1. The lawful basis under Article 6 of UK GDPR for processing and disclosing her personal data.
2. The source of her personal data* including any alleged justification for its use.
3. Confirmation of immediate erasure of her data under Article 17 (Right to Erasure).
4. A full explanation of how this breach occurred, including whether TRACE obtained her details from you or another source.
5. Confirmation that all future correspondence will be directed solely to the registered keeper, unless you can lawfully establish driver liability.

This breach will be reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and may be cited in any future costs application should this matter escalate. You are reminded that as data controller, you are fully liable for the actions of your agents under the accountability principle.

Any attempt to shift blame to TRACE will be treated as an admission of failure to control data processors under Article 28.

Yours sincerely, 

[Full Name of Registered Keeper] 
Registered Keeper of Vehicle [VRM]

This situation raises immediate red flags regarding data handling and liability. If the debt recovery letter is addressed to your mother, who is not the registered keeper, this is procedurally suspect. If she was not the driver and not the registered keeper, PCM has no lawful basis to pursue her unless she was explicitly named as driver and accepted liability.

Was your mother ever named in correspondence or online appeal as the driver? Does the letter reference the original PCN number and vehicle registration? Is your mother's name on the V5C (vehicle logbook)?

I would suggest the Keeper complains (preferably by email) to PCM and CC the DPO and yourself with the following:

Quote

Subject: Formal Notice – Unlawful Disclosure of Personal Data and Procedural Misconduct

To: Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd 
Re: PCN Reference [Insert Reference] – Vehicle Registration [Insert VRM]

You are hereby put on notice of a serious data protection breach and procedural irregularity in your handling of the above-referenced PCN.

The initial appeal was submitted by the registered keeper, whose name and address you obtained via DVLA under Regulation 27(1)(e) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002. No IAS appeal was submitted. At no point was any other individual named or identified as the driver.

Despite this, you have now caused a third-party debt recovery agent—TRACE—to send a letter to my wife, who is neither the registered keeper nor the driver. She has no connection to this matter and has never communicated with you. This is a blatant breach of the UK GDPR and a misuse of personal data.

You are required to respond within 14 days with:

1. The lawful basis under Article 6 of UK GDPR for processing and disclosing her personal data.
2. The source of her personal data* including any alleged justification for its use.
3. Confirmation of immediate erasure of her data under Article 17 (Right to Erasure).
4. A full explanation of how this breach occurred, including whether TRACE obtained her details from you or another source.
5. Confirmation that all future correspondence will be directed solely to the registered keeper, unless you can lawfully establish driver liability.

This breach will be reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and may be cited in any future costs application should this matter escalate. You are reminded that as data controller, you are fully liable for the actions of your agents under the accountability principle.

Any attempt to shift blame to TRACE will be treated as an admission of failure to control data processors under Article 28.

Yours sincerely, 

[Full Name of Registered Keeper] 
Registered Keeper of Vehicle [VRM]

We don't normally bother with IAS but I suggest you send the following, even if it us just to frustrate them and forcing them to pay for the appeal or concede:

Quote

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.

The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to provide the following:

1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.

2. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.

In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:

• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.

These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.

3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period as defined by the PPSCoP.

4. Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable.

5. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.

If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.

In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles.