Author Topic: Debt Recovery Plus for APCOA, Use of Private Car Park Without a Valid Payment / Permit  (Read 1386 times)

0 Members and 699 Guests are viewing this topic.

Send the following to UKcustomercomplaints@apcoa.com and CC complaints.lutondropoff@apcoa.com and yourself:

Quote
Subject: Formal Complaint – Misrouted Complaint and GDPR/KADOE Breach – PCN LU00217221

Dear APCOA UK Customer Complaints Team,

I am writing to escalate a formal complaint regarding your company's appalling handling of a matter concerning Parking Charge Notice LU00217221, issued in relation to Loughborough University.

I initially submitted my complaint on 12 March 2025 to your designated customer complaints address (ukcustomercomplaints@apcoa.com). However, I have since received multiple replies from an entirely unrelated department—complaints.lutondropoff@apcoa.com, which clearly pertains to London Luton Airport. This wholly inappropriate redirection appears to have been triggered by incompetent staff or defective automated systems failing to understand that the “LU” prefix refers to Loughborough University, not Luton Airport.

This degree of operational incompetence is unacceptable.

Despite me clearly quoting the reference LU00217221, exactly as printed on both the NtK and subsequent correspondence from Debt Recovery Plus, your staff then wrongly claimed the reference was “in the incorrect format” and could not be located. Only when I reluctantly provided the vehicle registration, as your misdirected team requested, did the matter appear to be taken any further—though still by the wrong department.

This error has now resulted in my personal data being unnecessarily shared with a department entirely unconnected to the matter at hand, thereby breaching the principles of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and misusing DVLA keeper data obtained under the KADOE contract. Please take this as formal notice that I have raised a complaint with the DVLA regarding APCOA’s clear breach of the terms of that agreement, which strictly limits data processing to the specific contravention for which it was obtained.

To summarise:

• The PCN relates solely to Loughborough University, not Luton Airport.
• You have misused the data by forwarding it internally to a department with no relevance or lawful purpose.
• You failed to correctly identify your own reference number, despite it being printed on all official correspondence.
• You have demonstrated a complete lack of data handling safeguards and customer service accountability.
• You have failed to deal with the core PoFA-related issues raised in my original complaint.

I now demand the following:

1. Immediate escalation of this complaint to the correct department responsible for Loughborough University PCNs;
2. A full explanation as to why my personal data was shared with an unrelated team;
3. Confirmation of the corrective steps you are taking to prevent such GDPR and KADOE breaches in future;
4. Written confirmation that the PCN LU00217221 has been cancelled—or alternatively, a formal rejection with a valid POPLA code.

I expect a full response within 14 days.

Sincerely,

[Your Full Name]
[Your Postal Address]
[Your Email Address]
[Vehicle Registration: YG12 BBF]

You should also, without delay, make a formal complaint to the DVLA:

• 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 APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd, a BPA 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 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.

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: APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd
Date of PCN issue: 24 January 2025 (Notice to Keeper dated)
Vehicle registration: YG12 BBF

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

Although APCOA may have had reasonable cause to request my data initially, their subsequent use of that data constitutes unlawful processing due to a breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). Compliance with the PPSCoP is a condition of the KADOE contract, which governs the permitted use of DVLA-supplied keeper data.

The KADOE contract states that personal data must only be used for the lawful pursuit of a parking charge, and only in accordance with the governing Code of Practice. When an operator breaches that Code, their lawful basis to continue processing the data collapses.

In this case, APCOA has breached the PPSCoP and misused DVLA data as follows:

1. Internal misrouting of my personal data to an unrelated business division.

After receiving my formal complaint regarding a PCN issued at Loughborough University, APCOA inexplicably forwarded my email, PCN reference, and vehicle registration to a completely unrelated department—the Luton Airport Drop-Off Complaints team. This appears to have occurred because of the “LU” prefix on the PCN (which refers to Loughborough University), leading APCOA to misclassify the complaint as a Luton Airport matter.

This represents an unlawful internal disclosure of my personal data to an irrelevant team with no lawful basis to process it. Once DVLA data is obtained under KADOE, it must not be disclosed further except as required to pursue the specific PCN. The Luton Airport division had no connection whatsoever to the matter, and therefore no lawful interest or justification for processing my data.

2. Incompetent record-keeping and false claim of an invalid PCN reference.

Despite me quoting the PCN number exactly as printed on the NtK and on a Debt Recovery Plus letter, APCOA claimed the number was “not in the correct format” and could not be found. This not only demonstrates a lack of data integrity and competence but further delayed their response to my complaint. They only acknowledged the case after I provided the vehicle registration, which they should never have needed had their records been accurate.

3. PoFA non-compliance.

In addition, the Notice to Keeper was not received until well outside the 14-day limit imposed by Paragraph 9(5) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This statutory failure means APCOA has no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper, nor to process their data for this purpose.

These are not minor technicalities but systemic breaches. APCOA has clearly failed to implement proper safeguards to restrict access to DVLA keeper data and has allowed internal cross-contamination between departments. Their actions are in direct contravention of the KADOE contract and UK GDPR Article 5(1)(c) and (f).

The DVLA remains the Data Controller for data it releases under KADOE and is therefore obliged to ensure that the data is used only for permitted purposes and not mishandled internally by private operators.

I respectfully request that the DVLA investigate this matter fully and take appropriate enforcement action, including:

• Confirming that a breach has occurred
• Taking enforcement action against the operator
• Suspending or terminating their KADOE access if warranted

I have attached relevant email correspondence as evidence and am happy to provide additional information if required. Please acknowledge receipt and confirm the reference number for this complaint.

Name: [Insert Your Full Name]
Date: [Insert Date of Submission]
« Last Edit: March 31, 2025, 02:49:55 pm by b789 »
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Thanks! My post wasn't clear on a couple of points so I'll amend your text slightly (only minor points of pedantry):

the second reply that was clearly from complaints.lutondropoff@apcoa.com seems automated and doesn't indicate any "taken further", yet.
The term "incorrect format" is from me, so I'll avoid appearing to quote them on that.


Great work, I'll put this into action.

Just an update on this. On 3rd April I emailed a version of b789's suggested complaint letter to ukcustomercomplaints@apcoa.com with myself and complaints.lutondropoff@apcoa.com in cc.
I had received a second letter from "Debt Recovery Plus" on 24 March with all the usual "threatening" appearances. I am merrily ignoring this and have never contacted Debt Recovery Plus. It essentially says they are advising their client, APCOA, to "begin legal recovery"

I have had no response from apcoa yet.
I also sent the suggested complaint to DVLA using their online form. They did reply, and quoted the wrong registration number, possibly I had put a typo in (I actually can't see my original post to them on my account at DVLA). I will add the correct registration as a comment on my case.

Quietly wondering "what happens next".
Are APCOA in the habit of quietly burying these things without acknowledgement?

I am aware that my "worst case scenario" is the £120 plus court fees for a total £235 and potential CCJ. I am in a privileged position whereby this is all affordable (no concerns about the Debt Recovery Plus threats of being unable to get a mortgage etc) and am also aware that it's unlikely to come to that.... but just wondering what the timeline is and what to expect. I know every case will be different though!

The DVLA complaint is likely to be fobbed off at stage 1 and once you've verified that the correct VRM has been used, show us their response so that a stage 2 complaint can be submitted.

Regarding the formal complaint to APCOA, the PPSCoP states:

11.3. A complaint must be acknowledged by the parking operator within 14 days of its receipt unless exceptional circumstances apply, in which case the complainant must be kept informed by the operator.
NOTE: For a small operator there might from time to time be limited administrative capacity to handle communications, e.g. due to staff sickness.

11.4. A full response to a complaint must be provided by the parking operator within 28 days of its receipt unless exceptional circumstances apply, in which case the complainant must be kept informed by the operator.

If they've breached any of those requirements, let us know and a suitable follow up can be provided.

As already advised, all debt recovery correspondence can be safely ignored.

APCOA will not litigate at all, so no need to even contemplate that. They are benign.

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

Thanks again. Added correct VRM as a comment in the DVLA case, yesterday (Sunday 13 April)

"On 3rd April I emailed a version of b789's suggested complaint letter to ukcustomercomplaints@apcoa.com with myself and complaints.lutondropoff@apcoa.com in cc."

"the PPSCoP states:

11.3. A complaint must be acknowledged by the parking operator within 14 days of its receipt unless exceptional circumstances apply, in which case the complainant must be kept informed by the operator.
NOTE: For a small operator there might from time to time be limited administrative capacity to handle communications, e.g. due to staff sickness."

It is now the end of the day on 18 April and there has been no response to my correspondence to apcoa on 3 April. Is it 14 WORKING days, that "deadline"?

The PPSCoP (Private Parking Single Code of Practice) at paragraph 11.3 does not specify that the 14-day acknowledgment deadline refers to working days—it simply says:

"A complaint must be acknowledged by the parking operator within 14 days of its receipt unless exceptional circumstances apply..."

In the absence of a specific reference to working days, this is correctly interpreted as calendar days.

In your case:

• Complaint sent: 3 April 2025
• Today: 19 April 2025

That is 16 calendar days, and no exceptional circumstances have been cited.

Since the DVLA complaint is already in progress, in order to maintain a clear audit trail of APCOA's continued non-compliance, here is a short, follow-up email you should now send to APCOA (copying both the original and misrouted contacts) to place them on further notice:

Quote
Subject: Failure to Acknowledge Formal Complaint – Breach of PPSCoP para. 11.3 – PCN LU00217221

Dear APCOA Complaints Team,

I am writing to remind you that I submitted a formal complaint by email on 3 April 2025 to ukcustomercomplaints@apcoa.com, copied to complaints.lutondropoff@apcoa.com, concerning PCN LU00217221 issued in respect of Loughborough University.

It is now the end of 18 April 2025, more than 14 calendar days since receipt, and I have received no acknowledgment or response. The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) at paragraph 11.3 is clear:

A complaint must be acknowledged by the parking operator within 14 days of its receipt unless exceptional circumstances apply…

No such exceptional circumstances have been cited, and no update has been provided. Your failure to comply with this basic obligation constitutes a further breach of the PPSCoP, compounding the data misuse and internal misrouting I have already raised with the DVLA.

I now request immediate written acknowledgment of my complaint and confirmation of its referral to the correct internal team. Please treat this as a final opportunity to avoid further regulatory escalation.

Sincerely,

[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Details]
[Vehicle Registration: YG12 BBF]
[PCN Reference: LU00217221]
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Not sure how it has ended up with Luton Airport!

Wafted here from paradise?

« Last Edit: April 20, 2025, 04:01:37 am by Charitynjw »
The contents of any & all my posts are my views & opinions only. If you require legal advice, please contact a solicitor/barrister.
"They shoot horses, don't they?"
Agree Agree x 1 View List

apologies b789, I thought I had already acknowledged / thanked you for your recent post and template. Thanks, belatedly.

For whatever reason, I didn't get around to sending your latest suggestion. Anyway today, 25 April, I received this from APCOA

"Incident type   New Request
Categorisation   Customer Service Centre (UK) - UK Customer Complaints
Incident date   03/04/2025 15:37
The update   25/04/2025 02:28 PM Jason Winstanley:
Thank you for your email dated 03/04/2025.

Due to the nature of your complaint and the fact that you allege a GDPR/KADOE breach, your complaint has been sat with APCOA's Data Protection Office (DPO) pending investigation. Their investigation has now concluded and your complaint has been assigned to me to as the Complaints Supervisor investigate the non-data related points and respond. APCOA will issue a full response to your complaint by close of business on Monday (28/04/2025).

Thank you for your continued patience.

Kind regards,

Jason Winstanley
Complaints & Administration Supervisor
APCOA"

You should send it anyway, just so as there is a "paper trail" of the complaints process.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

You should send it anyway, just so as there is a "paper trail" of the complaints process.

Thanks, done. I wrote that it was 24 April, as if it had been "stuck" en route before receiving the email I quote above.
Like Like x 1 View List

Many thanks b789 for all your reassurance and assistance on this. APCOA have cancelled the charge, no further action needed. What is interesting is that it states that payment WAS made on the day (the driver no longer recalls this but believes that it was one of those scenarios where VRM is entered on a system inside the premises being visited) but was recorded as being payment at a weekend/evening rate. If it was VRM then there was something wrong with the system, and if it was "pay and display" (driver may have, concerned about not having entered the VRM at time of ENTRY, decided to also pay - APCOA Pay and Display machines do offer an "after the parking" option for forgetful people) this should not have been possible. None of this was mentioned on the initial communication. But regardless, it is all dealt with now. They deny GDPR breaches. The correspondence is reasonably polite.

"Incident type   New Request
Categorisation   Customer Service Centre (UK) - UK Customer Complaints
Incident date   03/04/2025 15:37
The update   28/04/2025 04:17 PM Jason Winstanley:
Thank you for your patience whilst APCOA conducted a full investigation into the handling of your complaint and Parking Charge LU00217221. I can confirm that our investigations have been completed, and we present our findings below.

Timeline of events established during investigation:
16/01/2025 at 10:52:56 - Vehicle registration number YG12BBF was captured on ANPR cameras entering Edward Barnsley Car Park, Loughborough University.
16/01/2025 at 12:02:18 - Payment was made for Vehicle registration number YG12BBF at Edward Barnsley Car Park, Loughborough University using the Night & Weekend Tariff.
16/01/2025 at 12:05:15 - Vehicle registration number YG12BBF was captured on ANPR cameras exiting Edward Barnsley Car Park, Loughborough University.
22/01/2025 - APCOA requested registered keeper details from DVLA for vehicle registration number YG12BBF in relation to Parking Charge LU00217221.
23/01/2025 - DVLA supplied register keeper details to APCOA for vehicle registration number YG12BBF.
24/01/2025 - Parking Charge LU00217221 issued to the registered keeper via postal letter. The right to appeal offered for 28 days and Parking Discounted to £25 for a period of 14 days.
03/03/2025 - Parking Charge LU00217221 passed to Debt Recovery Plus as no contact made with APCOA by the registered keeper.
12/03/2025 - Formal complaint received from
  • (registered keeper of vehicle) and assigned the incident reference A0325-21345. Complaint related to Parking Charge LU00217221.

13/03/2025 - Complaint reviewed by Complaint Handler. complaint incorrectly catagorised and moved to email inbox for London Luton Airport Drop Off (LDO) Team by the Complaint Handler.
24/03/2025 - Response issued by APCOA's LDO Team advising that they could not locate the Parking Charge on their system. Believing that the Parking Charge reference may have been typed incorrectly, a request was made for the correct reference number.
25/03/2025 - Response received from [keeper] and case was assigned a new incident reference A0325-40547. It was confirmed in your email that the Parking Charge reference already supplied is correct and the vehicle registration numb er YG12BBF was supplied. In this email, you also stated that the Parking Charge was delivered after the 14 days outlined in POFA 2012 had expired and therefore the parking Charge was not compliant with POFA 2012.
01/04/2025 - The LDO Team discovered that the Parking Charge relates to a visit to Loughborough University and that they could not assist you any further. As a result, your complaint was passed back to the UK Complaints Team to investigate and respond.
03/04/2024 - A further complaint was received from you in regard to a GDPR/KADOE breach.
07/04/2025 - Second complaint reviewed by Complaints Handler and passed to APCOA Data Protection Office (DPO) for investigation due to alleged GDPR/KADOE breach. As complaint related to a data breach and had possible DPO implications, APCOA worked to current legislation which allows up to 1 calendar month from the date the complaint is received to investigate and respond.
25/04/2025 - DPO investigation completed and it was concluded that no data breach had occurred.
Second complaint passed to Complaints Supervisor to review, investigate and respond. Holding email issued at 14:28 by Complaints Supervisor advising that a full response will be issued to the complaint by close of business on 28/04/2025.
25/04/2025 at 17:40 - Complaint was followed by you stating that no acknowledgement had been received and a request was made for a full written acknowledgement and response.
In response to your allegations and the points raised in your multiple emails, please see below.

Regulatory Authority
I can confirm that APCOA are members of the British Parking Association (BPA) and agree to adhere to the Sector Single Code of Practice which replaced the BPA Code of Practice in June 2024 (amendments made in February 2025).

Improper assumption of keeper liability
While the V5C document does indicate that being the registered keeper is not proof of ownership in itself, there is a legal presumption that the registered keeper is the owner of the vehicle unless evidence to the contrary is provided. This is reflected in the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, which defines an “owner” as the person by whom the vehicle is kept. In the case of a registered vehicle, this is presumed to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered.

Accordingly, when investigating a breach of the terms and conditions of parking, and in the absence of any information suggesting otherwise, it is both reasonable and appropriate for us to correspond with the registered keeper as the presumed owner of the vehicle. Under contract law, the driver can be liable as they are present when the parking contract is both offered and accepted.

Alleged breach of KADOE
Our access to DVLA data is governed by the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract, which permits APCOA to request the registered keeper’s details for the purpose of enforcing parking terms and conditions or pursuing relevant offences.

APCOA conclude that your details were obtained legally and in-line with KADOE as we hold a legitimate interest in pursuing Parking Charge LU00217221 after vehicle registration number YG12BBF was parked in breach of the terms and conditions of use at Edward Barnsley Car Park, Loughborough University.

Parking Charge LU00217221 issuance timescales/POFA 2012
It is important to note that the Sector Single Code of Practice states that 'A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered and so “given” on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday'.

As set out in the timeline above, Parking Charge LU00217221 was issued 8 days after the date of contravention on 24/01/2025 via postal letter and was assumed as received on 28/01/2025, the second working day. In total, the Parking Charge was issued and assumed as delivered in 12 days from the date of contravention.

Alleged GDPR Breach
After a full investigation by APCOA's DPO, we can confirm that whilst your initial complaint was unnecessarily assigned to another department, this was kept within APCOA's Customer Service Centre and not shared to any offsite APCOA departments. We can also confirm that no duplicates of your personal details were created when assigning your complaint to another department. Whilst this may constitute an element of oversharing your data, this does not constitute a breach of your personal data. Your complaint in regard to this matter has been duly noted and will additional GDPR training be given to the Complaint Handler in question.

Handling of your complaint
After a full review of all emails both sent and received in relation to your complaint, I conclude that your complaint could have been handled in a more timely manner. APCOA set high standards for the dealing and resolution of all customer complaints and it appears that our handling of your complaint is below our usually high standards. As a result, an internal investigation has been launched into the manner in whcih your complaint was dealt with by the Complaints Handler. Whilst we cannot comment on internal investigations and their outcomes, rest assured that we are taking this very seriously and we will ensure that the relevant action is taken to ensure that all future complaints are handled to the standard that APCOA work to.

APCOA would like to to take this opportunity to offer our sincere apologies for any inconvenience caused over the handling of your complaint.

What led to the Parking Charge being issued to you
As set out in the timeline above, your vehicle parked at Edward Barnsley Car Park, Loughborough University for a total of 1 hour 12 minutes 19 seconds on 16/01/2024, which was a Thursday.

Whilst we appreciate that parking payment was made by you on this date, we must advise that Edward Barnsley Car Park, Loughborough University is strictly permit permit holders only between the hours of 6am and 6pm on weekdays (Monday to Friday). This is clearly stated on the the signage displayed around the site. Please see attached photographs of the signage in place at this car park for your records.

Conclusion and resolution
Due to the delayed response and resolution to your complaint, I can confirm that APCOA have cancelled Parking Charge LU00217221.

This case has been retracted from Debt Recovery Plus and will not be pursued from the date of this email. No further action is required from you and should another letter be received from Debt Recovery Plus, this does not need to be actioned. In the highly unlikely event that you receive more than one letter from Debt Recovery Plus demanding action on this case, please contact me immediately via this email trail.

Kind regards,

Jason Winstanley
Complaints & Administration Supervisor
APCOA"

It’s up to you now whether you want to out the knife in to APCOA for their failures and breaches which they are trying to squirm out of. You have successfully had the PCN cancelled, which is a success.

However, APCOA’s conduct here — misuse of your data, procedural failings, failure to adhere to PoFA properly, internal misrouting, unlawful third-party sharing, and misleading responses about presumed delivery — fully warrants escalated, serious complaints to:

• DVLA (for breach of KADOE and misuse of keeper data),
• Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) (for unlawful processing and mishandling under UK GDPR),
• British Parking Association (BPA) (for breaches of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice — PPSCoP — and their AOS membership obligations).

You already have a live complaint with DVLA. Now you can escalate properly to the ICO and the BPA — and you can update DVLA too with further evidence.

APCOA, as usual, have behaved appallingly and you were right to pursue this hard. They thought you would back down.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Thanks, I do admire your energy and passion but in this case I'll roll over quietly, we've achieved the goal.

Related anecdote though...around 25 years ago I managed to successfully Camden Council over a PCN. This was when Camden Council were NOTORIOUS for dubious practices re: parking (e.g. installing a new sign changing parking restrictions on a street, at 4am, with no prior notice to residents, and clamping or ticketing every parked resident car with permit). I remember this one so vividly.

I parked up on a double yellow, permitted for loading/unloading for up to 15 minutes, as long as you are seen to be actually loading/unloading. Entered a building, went for a quick wee and picked up a rucksack. I was out of sight of my car for under three minutes. They managed to ticket it in that time, and I did some time trials that indicated they must have been typing the ticket as soon as I parked up, stuck it on, and literally RUN away, as I didn't see them (I had noticed them on my approach to the parking). They are supposed to observe a vehicle for 5 minutes and not ticket it until it's been unattended (re: need to actually be loading/unloading) for ten minutes. Their PCN stated vehicle observed 17:18, PCN issued 17:20. Which was the core of my successful appeal

BUT! Their letter to me saying they were cancelling the charge, stated that it was a goodwill gesture because it was MY FIRST OFFENCE!! Comedy gold.
I probably should have pursued this and insisted on disciplinary action against the wardens.