Don't forget that the keeper in this case is a limited company, not a person, so the data would not necessarily be 'personal data' for the purposes of relevant legislation, and references in the first person to 'I' and 'my' data might need changing.
/Response from CSPM to Data protection complaint – request for evidence and Article 19 confirmations. I amended some details as per DWMB2 suggestion and required date to 11/09. Below response received on 15/09/25.
"Dear Mr ****,
Thank you for your further correspondence of 28th August 2025. We note your position.
We maintain that the referral to Debt Recovery Plus (DRP) occurred prior to CSPM receiving notification of your POPLA appeal. As soon as we were notified, the case was immediately withdrawn and placed on hold. DRP was instructed to cease all activity and to remove your data from their systems. They have confirmed compliance with this instruction.
For clarity:
No further processing or disclosures will take place in respect of this matter pending POPLA’s outcome.
Internal controls have been reinforced to ensure that no further referrals occur while an appeal remains active.
We have considered the points you raise. While we do not accept that the disclosure amounted to unlawful processing, we are satisfied that the remedial steps taken have fully addressed the issue. Accordingly, we will not be providing the additional documentation you have requested at this stage.
Should you remain dissatisfied, you are of course entitled to escalate your concerns to the BPA or the Information Commissioner’s Office. We will cooperate with any enquiry they may undertake.
The case remains on hold pending POPLA’s determination.
Yours faithfully,
**** ****
For CSPM"
That reply is a refusal to evidence anything. If this is still about the PCN being addressed to the company, not a named individual, and the same for the debt recovery letters, then your only recourse is to formally complain to the BPA and the DVLA.
If a director or individual was named, then you could sue under the DPA.
Well done!
Can you share with us the assessor's reasoning?
Well done!
Can you share with us the assessor's reasoning?
Decision: Successful
Assessor summary of operator caseThe operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.
Assessor summary of your caseThe appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. • Failure to meet provisions of POFA to transfer liability to the registered keeper. • Inadequate signage. • No evidence of landowner authority. The appellant has provided: 1. PDF document. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated and expanded on their grounds of appeal. • The landowner agreement was signed the day before the PCN was issued and raises serious doubts about whether the operator had lawful authority to issue PCNs on the date in question. • There is no evidence that enforcement infrastructure was properly in place or that the contract was active and valid at the time of the alleged contravention. • The entrance signage fails to comply with the requirements of Section 3.4 of the Private Parking Code of Practice. If new restrictions were introduced, the operator was required to use temporary signage and prominent notices for at least four months. There is no indication that any such measures were taken. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decisionI am allowing this appeal and will detail my reasoning below: By issuing a PCN the parking operator has implied that the terms and conditions of the private land have not been met. When an appeal is brought to POPLA, the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to demonstrate the breach they claim has occurred. I must therefore assess the terms and conditions of the site, any relevant code of practice, or legislation to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. In this case the operator has issued the PCN for not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted. In the appeal the appellant has raised concerns regarding the signage on site and the date of the landowner document. The landowner document was signed on 08 May 2025 however the contravention took place on 09 May 2025. The appellant has further explained there weren’t any signs demonstrating new terms apply and there isnt any evidence which demonstrates the terms were advertised on the date of the contravention. I have reviewed the case file provided by the parking operator, whilst I appreciate, they have provided images of the site, the images are not date stamped therefore I cannot be certain the signs were in place on the date of the contravention. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 3.4 of the Code says that when there is a material change to pre-existing terms of a car park, then additional temporary signs must be placed at the entrance to the car park for a period of no less than four months from the date of the change to make that clear. The parking operator has not provided any images which demonstrate they have advertised that there are new terms in place. I am unable to conclude that the operator has sufficiently complied with the requirements of the code. I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for the reason above, I did not feel they required further consideration.
Winner x 2
View List