Free Traffic Legal Advice

Don’t worry. You won’t be paying a penny to these scammers if you follow our advice. Please show the full Notice to Keeper (NtK) and the back, redacting only your personal details, the PCN number and your VRM. Leave all dates and times visible.

It’s too late to rely on PoFA failures as you have inadvertently admitted to being the driver. However, the signs you showed are in breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section 4.1 which states:


The Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) were not issued for not displaying a blue badge but for not paying the tariff for parking. The terms signs require blue badge holders to register their vehicle at a terminal for three hours free parking.

However, you were not aware of this condition of parking because the operator did not display the terms and conditions in a position that they could be read without needing to leave the vehicle. What condition that was visible, you complied with.

Any claim would not stand up in court, which is the most likely whay his will be defeated. G24 are a vexatious firm of ex-clampers. We will assist you in defeating this but you will have to follow the advice we give.

Are you prepared to fight this all the way if necessary?

Maybe you didn't reveal the drivers identity if they are requesting it in their response to your appeal. If so, send the following as a formal complaint, separately for each PCN, to G24:

Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Unlawful Parking Charge & KADOE Breach

G24 Ltd
Complaints Department
PO BOX 3320
Gerrards Cross
SL9 8WT.

By email to: info@g24.co.uk

Dear G24 Ltd,

Re: Parking Charge Notice [PCN Reference]

I write in response to your recent correspondence requesting the driver’s details and to escalate this as a formal complaint regarding your unlawful issuance of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and your potential breach of the DVLA’s Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract.

1. No Contract Was Formed – The Driver Fully Complied with the Only Visible Terms

Your signage at the disabled bays clearly states:

"Disabled bays are for disabled badge holders only.
All Disabled Blue Badge Holders must clearly display their badge to prevent being issued with a PCN."

The driver complied fully with these terms by displaying the Blue Badge. No other terms were visible, and no requirement to register the badge or pay a tariff was mentioned on the only sign at the disabled bays.

Any additional terms—if they exist—were not visible from within the vehicle and were not in the immediate vicinity of the disabled bays. The driver could not have agreed to any hidden terms, making this charge unenforceable.

2. Breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)

Your failure to provide visible terms near the disabled bays directly contravenes Section 4.1 of the PPSCoP, which states:

"The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, in order for drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed decision on whether to park at the premises."

Since there was no such sign near the disabled bays, you have failed to comply with the PPSCoP, meaning no enforceable contract was formed. This also raises concerns about discriminatory practices against disabled motorists.

3. No Keeper Liability – Your Notice to Keeper Fails PoFA 2012

Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued too late to comply with the 14-day limit for delivery as required under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5) of PoFA 2012, meaning you cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.

Furthermore, your NtK contains the following unlawful and misleading statement:

"If we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, we may assume you to be the driver and you may incur further charges."

This is not permitted under PoFA, and any attempt to infer keeper liability outside of PoFA is misrepresentation of legal position, which can be considered fraudulent misrepresentation under the Fraud Act 2006, Section 2.

Since you are not relying on PoFA, you cannot lawfully pursue the registered keeper. Any further demands directed at me as the keeper will be reported as harassment.

4. Misuse of Keeper Data & Breach of the DVLA’s KADOE Contract

Since your signage fails to form a contract, and you cannot establish liability under PoFA, you had no reasonable cause to obtain my Keeper data from the DVLA.

The DVLA’s KADOE contract strictly requires that Keeper data can only be accessed where:

• A parking charge is lawfully enforceable
• The operator fully complies with relevant legislation and the applicable Code of Practice

You have failed on both counts. As a result, I am formally reporting this case to the DVLA and demanding an investigation into your unlawful data access and potential suspension of your KADOE access.

I will also be escalating this to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for data protection breaches under UK GDPR.

5. Required Action from G24 – Formal Complaint

I now require the following within 14 days:

1. Immediate cancellation of the PCN due to lack of enforceability.
2. Written confirmation that my Keeper data has been erased and will not be processed further.
3. A full response to this formal complaint, including an explanation of why you obtained my Keeper data without a lawful basis.

Failure to respond adequately will result in further action, including complaints to:

• The DVLA – for a full KADOE contract breach investigation
• The ICO – for UK GDPR violations
• My MP – regarding the misuse of DVLA data by private parking firms

6. Data Protection Warning – Cease & Desist Further Processing of My Data

Under UK GDPR, you are unlawfully processing my personal data. You had no legal basis to obtain or retain my information. If you fail to cancel this charge, I will escalate this as a data protection breach to the ICO, and you may face enforcement action.

I expect a substantive response within 14 days. If you fail to cancel the charge, I will escalate this further.

This is your final warning. If I receive any further demands, I will take all necessary legal action to hold you accountable.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
Registered Keeper of Vehicle [Registration Number]

You can also submit a complaint to the DVLA at the same time.

Make sure you do the DVLA complaint too. That is probably the one they most fear. If there are enough regular complaints about their KADOE breaches, the DVLA will be forced to act and they risk having their access to DVLA data suspended or completely withdrawn.

I presume that that is G24's response to the formal complaint letter you were advised to send. Did you make a formal complaint to the DVLA? If not, I will provide advice on how to do that. It takes minutes to do online.

As this is likely to escalate to a court claim, which is a good thing, I propose a few things...

As the core defence will be the fact that no contract was formed due to the deficient signage and their failure to comply with section 4.1 of the PPSCoP, as outlined in your formal complaint, it is not worth pursuing the no Keeper liability angle because it would become obvious that the Keeper was also the driver in this instance.

I suggest a formal complaint to the IPC. Not because I expect them to challenge G24 meaningfully or that you can expect a reversal of the PCN or any finding in your favour, but because it establishes a paper trail of reasonable conduct by you.

If G24 escalate this to a court claim, being able to show you pursued every formal complaint route, including their ATA, reinforces your reasonableness. It paints G24 as unresponsive and inflexible, especially when the IPC fail to engage with the PPSCoP breach or visible signage issue.

A weak, dismissive, or copy-paste response from the IPC (which is highly likely) can be used as evidence of:

The breach of Section 4.1 of the PPSCoP is specifically within IPC’s remit. Even if they brush it off, you’ve now anchored your complaint to their own Code, and their failure to uphold it supports a future claim of systemic failure.

So, I suggest the following as your formal complaint to the IPC by email to complaints@theipc.info and CC in yourself:

To: complaints@theipc.info

Subject: Formal Complaint – G24 Ltd – Failure to Comply with PPSCoP Section 4.1

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am submitting this formal complaint regarding G24 Ltd and their handling of Parking Charge Notice [insert PCN reference], issued in relation to Edmonton Green Shopping Centre, 62 Smythe Close, London, N9 0TZ.

The complaint concerns G24’s failure to comply with Section 4.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). Specifically, the only signage visible from the disabled bay stated:

“Disabled bays are for disabled badge holders only. All Disabled Blue Badge Holders must clearly display their badge to prevent being issued with a PCN.”

The Blue Badge was correctly displayed at all times. No other terms were visible from the vehicle. Therefore, even if a contract could have been formed, the driver complied fully with all terms actually conveyed, meaning no breach occurred. If other terms existed elsewhere, they were not visible to the driver and cannot form part of any alleged agreement.

As I was with my disabled son who requires constant attention, it is not feasible to leave the vehicle to search for hidden signs elsewhere in the car park. Section 4.1 of the PPSCoP requires that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions must be viewable without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, particularly for disabled motorists.

G24’s signage setup failed to comply with this requirement, resulting in a charge issued despite full compliance with the only visible sign. This is both a breach of the Code and potentially discriminatory.

I raised these issues clearly in both the initial appeal and a formal complaint to G24. The operator failed to 'respond meaningfully' to the formal complaint and did not engage with the specific points raised. This is a further breach of PPSCoP Section 11.2, which requires operators to provide a transparent complaints procedure and to issue a 'meaningful response' to such complaints, particularly when they concern the handling of a Parking Charge Notice.

This complaint is submitted for the record and in case G24 escalate the matter to court or debt recovery. While I hold limited expectations regarding impartial redress, I nonetheless expect the IPC to demonstrate that it is capable of holding its members to account, as required under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.
If the IPC is unwilling or unable to ensure that operators respond meaningfully to formal complaints or comply with mandatory signage requirements under Section 4.1 of the PPSCoP, I will be forced to draw adverse inferences about the efficacy and independence of the IPC's complaints process and may raise this with the DVLA and other relevant authorities.

Please acknowledge receipt and confirm that this complaint will be recorded.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Vehicle Registration Number]
[PCN Reference Number]

So, for now, get that off to the IPC. Below is the instruction on how to make the DVLA complaint:


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:


Then you could upload the following as a PDF file for the formal complaint itself:

Yes, potentially. In your opening post you said that you had received PCNs. Was it actually your wife who received them?

In which case everything must be done in your wife's name as the NtK was addressed to her. She can transfer liability away from herself by simply telling the operator your name and address as the driver.

However, if the drivers identity has not been revealed, your wife has the added benefit of being to appeal only as the Keeper and simply refer to the driver in the third person. So, any correspondence suggested should be from your wife and referring to you only as the driver. She is not under any legal obligation whatsoever to identify you.

So, please clarify what has been said so far in this matter. Has your name, as the driver, been mentioned or not? When you initially appealed, was it appealed in your name or your wife's name?

Either way, if this were to ever get as far as a court hearing, either you as the driver or your wife as the Keeper have a very god defence. If this is not cancelled and they issue a claim, that is excellent news for you. The county court is the ultimate dispute resolution service. There is absolutely no danger of a CCJ or anything else by following this route.

They would not have responded to anyone except the person named on the NtK. In which case, it may be worth adapting everything I have given you to send as from your wife, the Keeper, and to simply make all references to "the driver".