Free Traffic Legal Advice

IAS Appeal: Parking Charge Notice [Reference Number]

To the IAS Assessor,

I am writing to appeal the parking charge notice issued by I Park Services Ltd, relating to vehicle registration [VRM]. This notice is entirely baseless due to the following reasons:

1. The vehicle was never parked, and no contract was formed.

According to the operator’s own ANPR evidence, the vehicle was on-site for a total of 2 minutes and 13 seconds. At no point was the vehicle parked, and no pay-and-display ticket was required, as no parking occurred. The driver briefly entered the site, sought a parking space, and then exited upon realising that none were available. The lack of parking means that no contract was formed, and therefore no parking charge can arise.

2. Breach of the required consideration period.

Section 13.1 of the IPC's Code of Practice mandates that a parking operator must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Schedule 7. This consideration period allows drivers a reasonable time to decide whether to accept the terms and conditions by parking or to leave the site. Schedule 7, Table B.1 which lists the minimum consideration and grace periods for a Pay and Display (up-front tariff) car park on controlled land where public parking is invited as a minimum of 5 minutes.

The vehicle in question was on-site for just 2 minutes and 13 seconds—far less than the mandated consideration period.

By issuing this charge without observing the minimum consideration period, I Park Services Ltd has violated the IPC’s Code of Practice, and the parking charge is unenforceable as no contract was established.

3. The operator unlawfully obtained DVLA data, breaching the KADOE contract and GDPR.

In order to access keeper data from the DVLA, parking operators must strictly adhere to the terms of the KADOE (Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an Event) contract. One of the core requirements of the KADOE contract is that operators must fully comply with the relevant Approved Operator Scheme’s Code of Practice, in this case, the IPC Code of Practice.

By failing to provide the required consideration period of at least 5 minutes, I Park Services Ltd has violated the IPC Code of Practice. This breach of the Code invalidates the legitimacy of the parking charge notice issued and, more crucially, also invalidates the basis upon which I Park Services Ltd requested and accessed my personal data from the DVLA.

Why the KADOE contract was breached:

Non-compliance with the Code of Practice: The KADOE contract requires operators to comply with their AOS (Approved Operator Scheme) Code of Practice, in this case, the IPC. By breaching Section 13.1 of the IPC Code (consideration period requirements), the operator was not entitled to request my data from the DVLA.

Improper justification for data access: The operator can only lawfully access keeper data if it has a valid and enforceable reason to pursue a parking charge. Since no parking occurred, no contract was formed, and no charge is enforceable, the request for my data was unjustified.

Unlawful request and GDPR breach:

As a result of breaching the KADOE contract, the operator’s request for my personal data was unlawful under both the KADOE contract and data protection laws, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Under GDPR, personal data must only be processed (in this case, accessed and used) where there is a legitimate and lawful basis. I Park Services Ltd accessed my data without a lawful basis, as their justification (the parking charge) was invalid from the outset. This constitutes a clear breach of GDPR, particularly:

Article 5(1)(a) – Lawfulness, fairness, and transparency: The operator failed to process my data lawfully, as the reason for accessing my data was based on a non-existent or unenforceable contract.

Article 6(1)(f) – Legitimate interests: The operator cannot claim legitimate interest in processing my personal data when they have breached the IPC Code of Practice and failed to comply with the KADOE contract.

By unlawfully obtaining and processing my data, the operator has misused my personal information and violated my data protection rights under GDPR. This misuse of data has caused significant distress and anxiety, as the operator continues to pursue an illegitimate parking charge based on data that was unlawfully acquired.

4. No evidence of landowner authority to issue PCNs.

In order for I Park Services Ltd to issue parking charge notices (PCNs) in their own name and pursue alleged contraventions, they are required to have proper legal authority from the landowner to manage parking on the site.

I Park Services Ltd has not provided any evidence of a valid contract between themselves and the landowner, which would allow them to operate on the site and issue PCNs. In accordance with the IPC Code of Practice, this evidence must be provided to demonstrate that they have the right to form contracts with drivers and enforce parking charges in their own name.

Without this landowner authority, I Park Services Ltd has no standing to issue PCNs, and the charge must be cancelled. I expect the operator to provide unredacted proof of their landowner authority or to cancel this charge immediately.

5. Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Imposing a charge for an alleged parking breach where no parking occurred constitutes an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Part 2, Section 62. The operator’s actions have created a significant imbalance to my detriment as a consumer by imposing an unreasonable charge for simply entering and leaving a car park without parking. This clearly violates my statutory rights under consumer protection law, and I expect the charge to be cancelled accordingly.

Conclusion

Given the facts that the driver never parked because there were no spaces available and operator’s failure to comply with the IPC Code of Practice, the unlawful request for DVLA data, the absence of any landowner authority, and the breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, this parking charge is wholly invalid and unenforceable. I expect the charge to be cancelled.

[Your Full Name]

Registered Keeper of Vehicle [VRM]

Subject: Complaint Regarding Breach of KADOE Contract and Unlawful Access of Keeper’s Data

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to file a formal complaint regarding a serious breach of the KADOE contract by I Park Services Ltd, who unlawfully requested and accessed my personal data from the DVLA. I am the registered keeper of vehicle registration [VRM], and I believe the operator’s actions in this case have violated the terms of the KADOE contract and breached my rights under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Attached to this complaint is a copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK), which shows that the vehicle was at the location for only 2 minutes and 13 seconds while the driver searched for an available parking space. As there were no spaces available, the driver left without parking. Despite this, I Park Services Ltd issued the NtK on the grounds that no Pay & Display permit was purchased.

This is a direct breach of the IPC Code of Practice (Version 7, Section 13 and Schedule 7), which clearly mandates that Pay & Display car parks must provide a minimum consideration period of 5 minutes for drivers to decide whether to park and accept the terms and conditions. The operator has failed to observe this mandatory consideration period, which invalidates the issuance of the parking charge.

The IPC Code of Practice is a core requirement of the KADOE contract, and I Park Services Ltd’s failure to comply with it means their request for my data from the DVLA was unlawful. Without compliance with the Code of Practice, there was no lawful basis for them to access my personal data, constituting a breach of GDPR as well.

Given these clear violations, I am requesting the following from the DVLA:

1. What sanctions will be imposed on I Park Services Ltd for breaching the KADOE contract and unlawfully accessing my data?

2. What steps will the DVLA take to ensure that such breaches are properly addressed and that operators acting unlawfully are held accountable?

3. How will the DVLA ensure that personal data is protected from future unlawful access by parking operators?

I must stress that a mere brush-off will not be acceptable in this instance, particularly given the potential conflict of interest, as it is well known that the DVLA receives substantial revenue from parking operators like I Park Services Ltd and other “cowboys and scammers”, as referenced in Parliament (Hansard). This financial relationship should not hinder the enforcement of rules designed to protect motorists’ privacy and rights.

I look forward to your detailed response outlining the actions the DVLA will take in this case and how such breaches are being dealt with moving forward.

Yours faithfully,


[Your Full Name]

Registered Keeper of Vehicle [VRM]