Author Topic: ACE Security Services CN – Not Displaying a Valid Permit – The Pelhams 1, Wimbledon, SW19 1NY  (Read 2367 times)

0 Members and 59 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hi all.

I (named driver but not registered keeper) parked in a visitor bay in a private residents car park. Less than 10 minutes later, returning to the car I had received a PCN.
Below are photos I took of the parked car, a sign in the car park and the PCN issued. Then I've attached some of the photos taken by the Ace Security Services warden.

I'd like to contest the charge. Would the following be wise to write:

The registered keeper of this vehicle contend that neither the keeper nor the driver of the vehicle are liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal on the grounds that an infringement of the terms and conditions did not occur. The car was parked in a visitors bay.








Photos taken by Ace Security Services













Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


I (named driver but not registered keeper) parked in a visitor bay in a private residents car park. Less than 10 minutes later, returning to the car I had received a PCN.

What do you mean by "I (named driver)"? If you were there driver but not the registered keeper (RK) of the vehicle, you are not yet "named" and you most certainly should never be named. Who is the RK? Is it someone close to you scheduled as your partner or a friend?

You need to understand the process and the law otherwise one of you (you or the RK) are going to waste your hard earned dosh paying something that you do not have to. However, as it is not your car, you need the compliance of the RK.

The drivers identity is unknown to the parking operator. Liability for the alleged charge is with the driver only. The operator will try and use the provision of PoFA 2012 to transfer the unknown drivers liability to the known keeper. However, the Notice to Driver (NtD) is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA and so, they cannot transfer that liability from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

The process is that if the operator does not receive an appeal from the driver, then they can apply to the DVLA for the Keepers details and then send the Keeper a Notice to Keeper (NtK). There are certain deadlines to all this that must be observed by the operator if they intend to try and use PoFA to hold the Keeper liable. However, as I have already pointed out, they have already failed to fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA.

IS there any more to that NtD you have shown us? We need to see all the wording of the whole NtD.

Normally, the way we would deal with an NtD PCN is to have the Keeper appeal the notice on day 27 after the issue of the NtD. This is to try and put them off applying to the DVLA for the keepers data and making them respond to the appeal without issuing a Notice to Keeper (NtK), which would also invalidate the PoFA liability for the keeper.

However, as you are not the keeper and everything we advise on is for the Keeper to do, you will require the Keepers co-operation. Also, as this is an IPC member, no appeal or subsequent secondary appeal is going to succeed. This will only be resolved one they make a claim against the Keeper. Any claim against the Keeper cannot succeed, especially if they were not the driver and because PoFA had not been fully complied with no transfer of liability from the unknown driver can be made to the known Keeper.

So, before I continue, you need to let me know whether you can go all the way with this otherwise I will be wasting my time and effort if you or the Keeper are simply going to pay up out of ignorance and fear of the process.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Hi B789,

sorry, forgot to scan the back of the PCN:




My wife is the registered keeper. I parked the car. I definitely do not want to pay up as it has most certainly angered me that they hand out tickets to those parked in designated bays for visitors. So I am happy to go 'all the way' against these cowboys.

Appeals to be made within 28 days. You mentioned wait until day 27th. Happy to do this.

With that in mind, what would you recommend I write in the appeal (on 9th April)?

The registered keeper of this vehicle contends that no infringement of the terms and conditions took place and no liability will be accepted. The car was parked in a visitors bay.

PS Sorry for the late reply too. I was waiting for an email to inform me that me post had had a reply but I forgot to tick that box.

Make a note in your diary to send the following appeal to ACE Security Services (ASS) on 9th April. Email it to appeals@acesecurities.co.uk and also CC in yourself:

Quote
Subject: Charge Notice 987187 – Keeper Appeal (Not the Driver)

To: appeals@acesecurities.co.uk

Dear Ace Security Services,

I am the Registered Keeper of vehicle DF14 KYP in respect of your Charge Notice number 987187, issued on 13/03/2025 at The Pelhams 1, Wimbledon.

Let’s be clear...

The wording on the reverse of your Charge Notice claiming that “CNs can only be appealed by the driver” is utter nonsense. Nowhere in the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) does it state that the Keeper cannot appeal, regardless of whether the notice is a Notice to Driver (NtD) or a Notice to Keeper (NtK). That statement is misleading, legally baseless, and potentially breaches the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

I was not the driver, and I am under no obligation to identify the driver. I have now provided you with the Keeper’s full name and serviceable address. As such, under Paragraph 5(1)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, you do not need to request my data from the DVLA.

If you now apply to the DVLA for my data, despite receiving it, you will be:

• In breach of your DVLA KADOE contract
• In breach of UK GDPR, and
• Liable to be reported to both the DVLA and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

You now have a choice:

• Accept this appeal as you are required to do under the PPSCoP, or
• If you prefer to play games, send a Notice to Keeper to the name and address provided. I will then appeal again on the same basis.

Either way, the NtD is not PoFA compliant. It fails to specify any period of parking, which is a mandatory requirement under Schedule 4 of PoFA. Merely recording an "observed time" followed by a "time of issue" one minute later does not establish any meaningful parking period. More importantly, a one-minute observation falls well within the mandatory consideration period (as set out in the Private Parking Single Code of Practice) during which a driver is entitled to review the signage and choose to leave without accepting any contract. Accordingly, no contract can be formed and no breach can occur. This point has already been successfully argued and is now persuasive case law following Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], should you be bothered to look it up.

Any attempt to ignore this appeal or use my details unlawfully will result in immediate formal complaints.

Regards,

[Full Name]
Registered Keeper
[Address]
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Wow that packs punch!
Thank you.
I'll post any reply I get on here when it comes.
Kind regards,
Toby

Too late to send that appeal now. Wait for the Notice to Keeper (NtK) to arrive.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Thank you b789. Stupidly and unfortunately I failed to send to appeal on the 27th day after the PCN.
I'll be in touch with when it arrives.
Cheers, Toby

Good evening, Notice to Keeper arrived yesterday. I unfortunately failed to reply to the initial Charge Notice in time (brain and phone malfunction).






Is it a good idea to use the template reply you suggested last time with a little bit of editing?
eg. (previous template with strikethrough and added words in red):

Subject: Charge Notice 987187 – Keeper Appeal (Not the Driver)

To: appeals@acesecurities.co.uk

Dear Ace Security Services,

I am the Registered Keeper of vehicle DF14 KYP in respect of your Charge Notice number 987187, issued on 13/03/2025 at The Pelhams 1, Wimbledon.

Let’s be clear...

The wording on the reverse of your Charge Notice claiming that “CNs can only be appealed by the driver” is utter nonsense. Nowhere in the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) does it state that the Keeper cannot appeal, regardless of whether the notice is a Notice to Driver (NtD) or a Notice to Keeper (NtK). That statement is misleading, legally baseless, and potentially breaches the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

I was not the driver, and I am under no obligation to identify the driver. I have now provided you with the Keeper’s full name and serviceable address. As such, under Paragraph 5(1)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, you do not need to request my data from the DVLA.

If you now apply to the DVLA for my data, despite receiving it, you will be:

• In breach of your DVLA KADOE contract
• In breach of UK GDPR, and
• Liable to be reported to both the DVLA and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).


You now have a choice to:

• Accept this appeal as you are required to do under the PPSCoP, or not.
If you prefer to play games, send a Notice to Keeper to the name and address provided. I will then appeal again on the same basis.

Either way, the NtD is not PoFA compliant. It fails to specify any period of parking, which is a mandatory requirement under Schedule 4 of PoFA. Merely recording an "observed time" followed by a "time of issue" one minute later does not establish any meaningful parking period. More importantly, a one-minute observation falls well within the mandatory consideration period (as set out in the Private Parking Single Code of Practice) during which a driver is entitled to review the signage and choose to leave without accepting any contract. Accordingly, no contract can be formed and no breach can occur. This point has already been successfully argued and is now persuasive case law following Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], should you be bothered to look it up.

Any attempt to ignore this appeal or use my details unlawfully will result in immediate formal complaints.

Regards,

[Full Name]
Registered Keeper
[Address]

Just appeal with the following:

Quote
Subject: Keeper Appeal – Charge Notice 987187 (Vehicle DF14KYP)

To: appeals@acesecurities.co.uk

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am the Registered Keeper of vehicle registration DF14KYP regarding your Charge Notice 987187.

Your Notice to Keeper is fundamentally non-compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4 and no contract could have been formed with the driver, for the following reasons:

1. No Period of Parking Stated and No Evidence of Contract Formation

Your original Notice to Driver failed to specify any “period of parking” as required by PoFA paragraph 7(2)(a). Instead, it recorded only a single observation time followed by a time of issue one minute later. A one-minute snapshot is not a “period of parking” and does not satisfy the mandatory requirement under PoFA, as confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions, where the court held that an operator must evidence an actual identifiable period of parking, not merely a momentary presence.

Moreover, the lack of any proper recorded parking period means there is no evidence that the vehicle remained stationary beyond the minimum mandatory consideration period required under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The driver is entitled to enter the site, review the signage, and leave without entering into any contract.

Since you have provided no evidence that the vehicle remained in situ beyond the minimum consideration period, there is no basis to suggest that any contractual relationship was ever formed between the driver and Ace Security Services.

This is not simply a PoFA breach: it is also a breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice in failing to respect the minimum consideration period and issuing a charge when no contract could have been created. This breach of the Code of Practice also amounts to a breach of the KADOE contract you hold with the DVLA.

A formal complaint has already been submitted to the DVLA regarding these breaches and the misuse of Keeper data.

This fundamental defect carries through to your Notice to Keeper, which also fails to specify any “period of parking” as required by PoFA paragraph 8(2)(a). The NtK simply restates the same defective single timestamp without providing any proper period of parking as shown in your Notice to Driver.

2. Incorrect Wording Regarding the 28-Day Period

Your Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with PoFA paragraph 8(2)(f) because it misstates the mandatory warning about the 28-day relevant period.

Specifically, your NtK wrongly claims that the Keeper has "28 days from the date given" to make payment.
This is completely incorrect.

PoFA paragraph 8(2)(f) expressly requires you to warn the Keeper that the 28-day period begins "AFTER" the day on which the Notice to Keeper is given (i.e., after it is deemed delivered, which is two working days after posting).

The use of the word "AFTER" in PoFA is deliberate, precise, and critical. It means that the counting of the 28-day period does not start on the day the notice is given, but starts on the day "AFTER" the notice is deemed given.

By incorrectly stating that the Keeper has 28 days from the date given, you have misstated the Keeper's legal rights, confused the actual payment deadline, and fundamentally failed to comply with the requirements of PoFA 8(2)(f). Strict adherence to the statutory wording is required for any attempt to transfer liability from driver to Keeper. Because you have misstated the timing rule by ignoring the crucial word AFTER, your NtK is invalid for the purposes of PoFA.

Because of these defects, you have failed to meet the mandatory conditions under PoFA Schedule 4, and therefore you cannot transfer liability to the Keeper. Your claim against the Keeper must fail.

If you are unable to understand the explanation provided, I suggest you pass this appeal to a responsible adult within your firm, preferably one who has at least a basic understanding of PoFA and contract law and have them explain to you that you have no hope of ever recovering a penny from the Keeper and are only going to be wasting your firm's money on a wasted IAS appeal or, even more on trying to litigate this.

Yours faithfully,

[Full Name]
Registered Keeper
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Here’s how to make a DVLA complaint which you should also submit immediately:

• 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 evidence
That’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:

Quote
I am submitting a formal complaint against Ace Security Services, 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 breaches 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:

Quote
SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP

Operator name: Ace Security Services
Date of PCN issue: 13 March 2025
Vehicle registration: DF14KYP

I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my personal data by Ace Security Services, who obtained my keeper details from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) contract.

Although the parking company 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 Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which forms a mandatory requirement for access to DVLA keeper data. The PPSCoP is part of the governance 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 full compliance 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, Ace Security Services has breached the PPSCoP in the following ways:

• They issued a Charge Notice without recording or specifying any "period of parking," in breach of the requirements of both PoFA Schedule 4 and the PPSCoP. Instead, they relied on a single observation time and a time of issue one minute later. This fails to evidence that the vehicle remained beyond the mandatory minimum "consideration period" required under the PPSCoP, during which no contract can be formed.
• They pursued a parking charge where there was no evidence that any contract had been formed, contrary to the requirements of the PPSCoP.
• They issued a Notice to Keeper containing incorrect information about the 28-day statutory period under PoFA, misrepresenting the Keeper’s legal rights.
This is wrong. PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 8(2)(f) requires the warning to state that the relevant period is "28 days beginning with the day AFTER" the day on which the notice is given (deemed two working days after posting).
By incorrectly wording the 28-day period, Ace Security Services misrepresented the Keeper’s statutory rights, created confusion over the legal timescale for payment and liability, and failed to comply with the strict mandatory conditions of PoFA required to transfer liability from the driver to the Keeper.
Strict adherence to PoFA wording is required. Failure to meet these conditions invalidates any lawful basis for pursuing the Keeper.
• They used the Keeper’s data for enforcement purposes despite having failed to comply with the conditions under which they are permitted to pursue keeper liability.
• They therefore used my personal data for a purpose not permitted by the KADOE contract or UK data protection law.

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]
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Dear b789,

thank you for your help. I've emailed ACE Security Services. I've also sent the complaint to the DVLA.



I'll let you all know how we get on.

Best wishes,

Toby

Like Like x 1 View List

DVLA's reply to the complaint:





This is the standard Step 1 fob-off, which:

• Avoids addressing any specific PoFA or PPSCoP breach,
• Falls back on the “reasonable cause” at time of request excuse, and
• Repeats that the DVLA “cannot determine liability” — which is irrelevant to your complaint.

They did not engage with your actual complaint, which was not about whether there was reasonable cause at the time of the request, but whether the subsequent use of your data breached the KADOE contract and UK GDPR after receipt.

Their statement that:

"Pace Recovery & Storage Ltd confirmed the Charge Notice was issued… due [to] parking… without a valid permit…"

completely ignores that the Notice to Driver and Notice to Keeper were PoFA non-compliant, and that no evidence of contract formation exists.

They incorrectly rely on “no appeal received” as justification. But you intended to appeal within the 28 days but didn’t, you later provided your full Keeper details voluntarily and they then obtained them from DVLA after already being in possession of them, and they pursued Keeper liability without complying with PoFA or the PPSCoP.

DVLA’s refusal to “determine liability” is irrelevant. You are not asking them to do that — you are asking them to determine whether data was misused once obtained in breach of the KADOE contract and/or PPSCoP.

The DVLA is still the Data Controller and is responsible for ensuring its data is used lawfully after disclosure. You have provided evidence that the operator:

• Breached PoFA by failing to specify a “period of parking,”
• Breached PoFA by misstating the 28-day liability warning,
• Breached the PPSCoP by issuing a charge where no contract could have been formed,
• Breached the KADOE contract by using your data for an illegitimate purpose once it was clear no recovery could lawfully be made from the Keeper.

The Step 2 complaints procedure is exactly the same as the first step but the link is to "Head of Complaints" here: https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/head-of-complaints

Use the following as the content for the webform:

Quote
This is a Step 2 escalation regarding a complaint already submitted and acknowledged under DVLA reference 0401979.

Your Step 1 response dated 14 May 2025 fails to address the actual basis of my complaint. You have wrongly assumed that my concern was about the initial request for data (reasonable cause), when in fact the issue is with the subsequent misuse of that data in breach of the KADOE contract, the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), and UK GDPR.

The parking operator, Ace Security Services (trading as Pace Recovery & Storage Ltd), used my DVLA data to pursue a parking charge in circumstances where:

- No valid “period of parking” was recorded (PoFA breach),
- No evidence of any contract being formed exists (PPSCoP breach),
- The NtK misstates the 28-day period under PoFA (Schedule 4, para 8(2)(f)),
- Therefore, the use of my data for enforcement purposes was illegitimate.

The DVLA remains the data controller and is responsible for ensuring that third parties with KADOE access do not misuse that data once obtained. My complaint is about post-access misuse, not the initial request. I am now requesting a formal internal review at Step 2.

A revised supporting statement is attached. Please escalate this matter accordingly and confirm the new reference number.

You save the following as a PDF file and upload it as before:

Quote
SUPPORTING STATEMENT – STEP 2 COMPLAINT

Misuse of DVLA Data by Ace Security Services (Pace Recovery & Storage Ltd)


DVLA Ref: 0401979
Vehicle: DF14KYP
Date of CN: 13 March 2025

This is a formal Step 2 escalation following the DVLA’s response dated 14 May 2025. That response did not address the substance of my original complaint and failed to distinguish between a complaint about initial data access and a complaint about subsequent misuse.

What the DVLA got wrong:

Your Step 1 response focused entirely on whether the operator had “reasonable cause” at the time of requesting data. This was never in dispute. My complaint is about how the data was used after it was obtained — which falls under your obligations as Data Controller under the KADOE contract and UK GDPR.

Summary of misuse and code breaches:

Ace Security Services obtained my data and then:

• Issued a Notice to Keeper without specifying a “period of parking”, as required by Schedule 4, paragraph 8(2)(a) of PoFA. The NtD and NtK only referenced a single timestamp, not a duration.
• Failed to evidence that the vehicle remained in situ beyond the consideration period (as required by the PPSCoP). Therefore, there is no basis to claim a contract was formed.
• Issued a Notice to Keeper that misstates the 28-day warning under PoFA. It said: "28 days from the date given," instead of: "28 days beginning with the day AFTER the day on which the notice is given" (per paragraph 8(2)(f)).
• Pursued Keeper liability despite failing to comply with PoFA — invalidating their legal basis to do so and rendering the use of my DVLA data unlawful.

Why this breaches the KADOE contract and UK GDPR:

The KADOE contract explicitly states that keeper data must only be used to pursue a parking charge in full compliance with the applicable Code of Practice.

Ace Security Services has not done so. By breaching PoFA and the PPSCoP, their use of my data falls outside the “permitted purpose” for which it was provided — making it a misuse of personal data under both the KADOE contract and data protection law.

Action requested:

I am now formally requesting that the DVLA:

• Conduct a proper internal review of this complaint,
• Confirm that a breach of the KADOE contract has occurred,
• Take enforcement action against Ace Security Services / Pace Recovery & Storage Ltd,
• Provide me with a new reference number and outcome in writing.

The DVLA remains the data controller and is duty-bound to act when personal data it provides is misused. You cannot lawfully ignore a complaint about post-access abuse simply because the initial request may have had “reasonable cause.”

Please confirm that this has been escalated to Step 2 and provide an appropriate response. I am also willing to provide additional material if required.

Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]
Date: [INSERT DATE]
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain