I hope you didn't use that linked response to an appeal rejection as your initial appeal to Britannia! Their appeal rejection letter suggests you included a load of old cobblers in your initial appeal with references to their ANPR certification, their insurance cover, the BPA Code of Practice (superseded in October 2024 by the PPSCoP), grace periods and other nonsense such as something to do with night time photos (certainly at this stage).
What EXACTLY did you say in your initial appeal that that rejection letter refers to? I don't want paraphrasing. Precisely what you put in your initial appeal.
Before you get any help with a POPLA appeal, we need to know what you have blabbed to Britannia. Are they aware that the Keeper is the driver? Was any reference to the driver made in the third person? Did you use things like "I did this or that" or did you use "the driver did this or that"?
Subject: Formal Complaint – PCN Ref: [XXXXXXX] – Failure to Properly Consider Appeal / PPSCoP Breach
To: Complaints Department
Operator: Britannia Parking
PCN Reference: [XXXXXXX]
Vehicle Registration: [XXXXXXX]
By email to: complaints@britannia-parking.co.uk
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to raise a formal complaint (not an appeal) regarding the handling of my appeal dated 18/03/2025 in relation to the above-referenced Parking Charge Notice. I request that this complaint be treated in accordance with Section 11 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and logged formally with a reference number for tracking purposes.
Your response dated 20/03/2025 fails to address the grounds of my appeal and instead contains irrelevant boilerplate text, including references to consideration and grace periods, ANPR camera maintenance, insurance, and BPA audits—none of which were raised in my original appeal.
My appeal clearly cited specific breaches of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), including:• Failure to include the mandatory keeper invitation wording (PoFA 9(2)(e)(i));
• Inaccurate payment deadlines (PoFA 9(2)(f));
• Failure to clearly identify the creditor (PoFA 9(2)(h));
• Doubt as to whether the NtK was actually posted on the stated date (PoFA 9(4)).
I also referenced your non-compliance with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), including the misuse of DVLA data where PoFA conditions are not met.
Your response does not even acknowledge these grounds. Instead, it makes generalised assertions without offering any evidence or point-by-point rebuttal. This strongly suggests my appeal was either not reviewed at all or was dismissed without reference to its actual content. Such conduct fails the requirements for a fair and transparent appeals process as set out in the PPSCoP.
Accordingly, I put you to strict proof that my appeal was properly reviewed and responded to by a person competent to assess legal compliance with PoFA and the PPSCoP. I require:1. A full response to the specific PoFA breaches raised.
2. Clarification of the legal entity acting as creditor (PoFA 9(2)(h)).
3. An explanation of how the issue date and service of the NtK is proven.
4. Confirmation of whether the appeal was reviewed manually or by automated rejection.
This complaint will be escalated to the DVLA and the British Parking Association (BPA) if not resolved adequately. I also reserve the right to present this correspondence to POPLA and any judge should Britannia be so stupid as to try and escalate that far, as evidence of Britannia Parking’s failure to handle complaints and appeals properly and in accordance with your KADOE contract obligations.
I expect a full and substantive response within 14 days.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Address if required]
On the off-chance, see if you can log onto the POPLA portal and if it will let you submit something. No harm in trying.
If it will not, then it is a case of waiting to see if they decide to take the matter to court, where you will have the opportunity to defend the matter. Where cases are defended, the claimant often discontinues before the hearing.
Thank you for your email.
Firstly, please see attached a copy of your initial appeal, a copy of the original Parking Charge sent, and the proof of postage for this.
From review of the appeal, you have only mentioned points relating to PoFA compliance and the KADOE contract. In your appeal response, the team have provided the relevant information regarding the Parking Charge being compliant, as well as the reasonings for the Parking Charge being issued. The reasons for the Parking Charge being issued supports the validity of the charge being issued, meaning we had full authority to request your details from the DVLA.
Please refer to the copy attached, showing you had been notified under PoFA, the option to transfer the liability, and the time frames for appeal/payment.
I can also see that we responded to your comment regarding the creditor 'The Parking Charge clearly states the creditor, please re-read the Parking Charge for this information'.
All appeals are reviewed on a case by case basis, by our appeals team (staff members) - templated responses are used to ensure consistency, and to ensure full and correct information is provided across the board. Individual questions raised that are relevant to a case as responded to free hand.
Please refer to the copy attached, showing you had been notified under PoFA, the option to transfer the liability, and the time frames for appeal/payment - I am happy with the response provided, and all relevant questions or points raised have been responded to.
From review of the email trail dated the 22/03/2025, I can see this has not fully be resolved, therefore can only apologise for any confusion or frustration caused. I have raised this with our training and compliance team to review. However, the appeal process was completed correctly.
From review of this case, I am happy this complies with the BPA Code.
I am willing to allow a further 7 days for payment of the discounted amount of £60 - this will expire on the 14/04/2025.
Should you be unhappy with your appeal response, you have been provided with the option to appeal to POPLA - please ensure the time frames for this are met to ensure you do not miss the deadline.
We must also make you aware that all complaints must be responded to within 21 days, not 14. This time frame has also been met.
Kind Regards,
I am submitting a formal complaint against Britannia Parking, a BPA Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) member with DVLA KADOE access, for breaching the BPA/IPC 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.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP
Operator Name: Britannia Parking
Date of PCN issue: [INSERT DATE]
Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]
I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my personal data by [INSERT PPC NAME], who obtained my keeper details from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) contract.
I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my personal data by Britannia Parking, who obtained my keeper details from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) contract.
Although Britannia Parking may have had reasonable cause to request my data initially, the way they have used that data afterwards amounts to unlawful processing. This is because they have acted in breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which is a mandatory requirement for access to DVLA keeper data. The PPSCoP forms part of the framework that regulates how parking companies must behave once they have received keeper data from the DVLA.
The KADOE contract makes clear that keeper data may only be used to pursue an unpaid parking charge in line with the Code of Practice. If a parking company fails to comply with the PPSCoP after receiving DVLA data, their use of that data becomes unlawful, as they are no longer using it for a permitted purpose.
In this case, Britannia Parking has breached the PPSCoP in the following ways:• They failed to properly consider my appeal dated 18/03/2025, which raised specific breaches of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), namely:• Failure to include the mandatory keeper invitation wording (PoFA 9(2)(e)(i));
• Inaccurate payment deadlines (PoFA 9(2)(f));
• Failure to identify clearly the creditor (PoFA 9(2)(h));
• Doubt as to whether the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was posted on the stated date (PoFA 9(4)).
• Instead of engaging with the substance of my appeal, Britannia Parking issued a boilerplate response dated 20/03/2025, failing to address the points raised, suggesting either no review was conducted or a deliberate disregard of their obligations under the PPSCoP.
• The response contained irrelevant text concerning ANPR maintenance, consideration periods, insurance, and BPA audits, none of which were raised in my appeal.
• This amounts to a failure to offer a fair, transparent, and proper appeals process as required under Section 11 of the PPSCoP.
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 warranted
I 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]
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C].
If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. The initial Notice to Keeper was not received, as I had moved address and the V5C logbook had not yet been updated with the DVLA at the time of the alleged contravention. As such, no PoFA-compliant NtK was served within the timeframes required by paragraph 9(5) of the Act. Even if your client were to issue or re-send a copy now, it would be well outside the statutory period and would not remedy the defect. Your client is therefore unable to rely on PoFA to establish keeper liability.
As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)
Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents/information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol.
As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.
7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged contravention.
11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?
I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. The initial Notice to Keeper was not received, as I had moved address and the V5C logbook had not yet been updated with the DVLA at the time of the alleged contravention. As such, no PoFA-compliant NtK was served within the timeframes required by paragraph 9(5) of the Act. Even if your client were to issue or re-send a copy now, it would be well outside the statutory period and would not remedy the defect. Your client is therefore unable to rely on PoFA to establish keeper liability.