Free Traffic Legal Advice

You can simply respond to the operators evidence with the following:

1. The whole of LJLA is land that is under statutory control and therefore there can be no Keeper liability. If a supposedly legally qualified IAS assessor cannot understand that, then let the operator litigate the matter and we will see.
2. The signs are prohibitive and cannot form a contract. Again, if the IAS assessor is really legally qualified to solicitor or barrister level, as they claim but do not evidence, then they would understand basic contract law and know that a prohibitive sign cannot form a contract by conduct.
In conclusion, regardless of the operator’s protestations, there is no Keeper liability, and no contract could have been formed with the driver. The operator may squeal all they like about some presumed identity between Keeper and driver, but any legally trained assessor would know such an inference would never hold water in court—particularly in light of VCS v Edward (2023), where this very operator failed spectacularly to prove their case on appeal. Frankly, the appellant has no issue with them trying their luck again in front of an actual judge, should this appeal be dismissed by the supposedly 'independent' IAS and their so-called legally qualified assessors.

I take it you're not a fan of the IAS! Submitted.

Note their email was titled Prima Facie Case Recieved which isn't a good start and doesn't give you much faith.

The IAS upholds 4% of appeals whereas POPLA upholds 40% of appeals, that fact in itself says a lot.

Smart Parking, a really bad car park operator, recently switched to the IAS because they (Smart) lie egregiously in their appeal responses, and POPLA often - not always - found them out. The IAS will side with them.

Reply from DVLA....Thank you for your email of 4 June about the release of information from our vehicle
register and the dispute you have with the parking company Vehicle Control Services (VCS)
Ltd. Your case has been escalated to step 2 of our complaints procedure and I have been
asked to reply.
We aim to reply within 10 working days. However, on this occasion, it has taken us longer
as our current work volumes are higher than usual. Please accept my apologies for this.
I understand you feel that Vehicle Control Services (VCS) Ltd did not meet the
requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, and that they have
breached the Private Parking Single Code of Practice. I fully appreciate you feel that
although the company may have had reasonable cause to request your information, this
was then misused. However, I must advise that it is not a matter for the DVLA to decide on
the merits of individual cases or to arbitrate in any civil disputes between motorists and
private companies or other enforcement agencies. We cannot regulate any aspect of a
company’s business. Any representations should be made to the landowner or their agent.
As you are aware, the law provides for the release of information from our records in certain
circumstances. Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing)
Regulations 2002 permits the disclosure of information from vehicle records held by the
Secretary of State for Transport to those who can demonstrate a reasonable cause for
receiving it. While reasonable cause is not defined in legislation, the government’s policy is
that requests should relate to the vehicle or its use following incidents where there may be
liability on the part of the driver.
I should explain that overall responsibility for off-street parking sits with the Ministry of
Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). This includes matters relating to
the applicability of the keeper liability measures provided by the POFA 2012. I can advise
you that there will be significant changes within the private parking sector with the creation
of a statutory Code of Practice and a single independent appeals service. MHCLG is
responsible for the implementation of these new measures. You may wish to raise any
concerns you may have with them. They can be contacted by emailing
parking@communities.gov.uk

It may also help to explain that the DVLA’s role in this context is to consider whether the
release of information to third parties requesting the data meets the reasonable cause
provision under Regulation 27(1)(e) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing)
Regulations 2002. As you are aware, the release of information to private car parking
companies is considered to be a reasonable cause.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is fully aware of how data held on our records
is released. The ICO’s opinion regarding the lawful basis for the processing of vehicle
keeper data is published here. This includes information regarding the sharing of data with
car park management companies under Article 6(1) of the UK General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR). It also explains that paragraph 11 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 provides car park management companies with an enforceable
legal right to claim charges from vehicle keepers.
Recipients of information from our records are bound by contract and subject to audit. The
supporting evidence relevant to each request must be held and stored securely by the
company. Anyone making a false declaration to obtain information may be leaving
themselves open to prosecution under data protection laws. As my colleague has
explained, VCS, separately from us, is the data controller of each item of data received
from us from the point of receipt. VCS has a duty to comply with data protection legislation
and any data protection principles in relation to any further processing.
As you are aware, private parking management companies wishing to request vehicle
keeper information must be members of an appropriate Accredited Trade Association
(ATA). This helps ensure that requesters are legitimate companies operating in line with a
published code of practice that promotes fair treatment of the motorist and ensures that
there is a clear set of standards for operators that cover, among other things, signage,
appeals processes, and methods of contacting drivers. The Government is very much
aware of public concern about the enforcement practices adopted by some parking
management companies. We are working closely with the parking sector to improve
procedures and to encourage compliance with relevant codes of practice. The ATA carries
out its own checks before allowing companies to become members and monitors ongoing
compliance with the code of practice.
As previously advised, UK Car Park Management Ltd is a member of the International
Parking Community (IPC). Under the circumstances, I suggest that you contact the IPC
about this matter, as the DVLA cannot comment on the issues you have raised regarding
compliance with the code of practice. It is the IPC’s responsibility to make sure their
members are operating according to the code of practice available at
www.theipc.info/publications
Section 18 (page 30) of the code of practice covers monitoring compliance. If the IPC find
that VCS have not followed the correct procedures, they will take the appropriate action. As
my colleague has explained, this could mean that the parking company is suspended or
expelled. During which time no data will be provided to them by the DVLA. As noted on
section 18.11, the ATAs inform the DVLA and the other ATA immediately if an operator is
suspended, expelled from membership.

If a company does not adhere to their contract with us, it could be suspended independently
of any ATA investigation. I can assure you our audit arrangements ensure that requesters
have appropriate internal controls in place to protect the information provided. Checks are
also conducted by the Government Internal Audit Agency (GIAA) on our behalf. Where
compliance issues are identified, we will take appropriate action to ensure the matter is
rectified.
While I understand your concerns and that you feel that we have not complied with our
duties as the data controller, there is no evidence that VCS has breached any statutory
provisions or other legal requirement affecting the Keeper At Date Of Event (KADOE)
service. Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 could be applicable at the site in question, as the
enforcement scheme at Liverpool John Lennon Airport is not operated under airport
byelaws.
In closing, I can assure you we have followed the correct procedures in releasing your data
and we cannot become involved in the dispute that has now arisen between you and the
parking company. VCS are responsible for making decisions about how the personal data
they hold is handled, ensuring compliance with data protection regulations including the UK
GDPR. If you cannot resolve this matter through appealing to VCS or via the IPC process,
or through contact with MHCLG, you have the option of seeking independent legal advice.
Ultimately it would be for a court to determine the validity of any claim.
This brings the DVLA procedure to an end. Further options can be found in the enclosed
leaflet, (MIS 582), which outlines the remit of the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA).
Please note, an ICA cannot look at complaints about legislation, government, departmental
or agency policy.
I must also advise that an ICA would review the handling of your enquiry but if you are not
satisfied with the way that we (or indeed the other parties concerned) have handled your
data, you should contact the Information Commissioner’s Office. Further information and
their contact details can be found at ico.org.uk

With respect, IMO there is a fundamental misunderstanding here.

The trigger for DVLA to release keeper details is a request from an approved operator of an ATA citing 'reasonable cause'. It is NOT whether the person could then use this to pursue the keeper under the keeper liability provisions of PoFA. This is a totally separate matter which falls under the ATA's and the court's remit.

Misrepresentation of my complaint: Your Step 2 response repeatedly refers to “reasonable cause” under Regulation 27, despite my explicit clarification that my complaint was not about the initial data release, but about the subsequent unlawful use of that data in breach of the KADOE contract and data protection law.

The driver is liable (if such liability exists) and therefore 'reasonable cause' applies irrespective of whether land is 'relevant land' or not and an approved operator may request the keeper's details for the purpose of notifying the keeper of the driver's liability and, if they wish, even inviting the keeper to pay. What they may not do in any notice to the keeper IMO is to claim that this right to enforce against the keeper exists in law, irrespective of whether the operator intends to exercise this right or not. IMO, it's not DVLA's burden to test the use of data i.e. may the keeper be held liable or not, every time they get a request.

IMO, whether land is relevant land or not is not a DVLA matter neither is the manner in which it is used subsequently to recover a parking charge. However, as DVLA state, its subsequent use by the now de jure data controller, the operator, must be lawful. IMO, it's arguable that if the data of the keeper is used in a manner which misrepresents the controller's lawful authority then this is an arguable breach of GDPR because data may only be used for legitimate purposes. Surely the ICO has a role here if data is released, say, to 'Debt collectors' and the like solely for the purpose of pursuing the keeper. This must be an ICO matter.


(DVLA's response might carry the hallmarks of a standard response, perhaps they've responded so often that cut and paste is easier. Typos are likely to occur, as here.)

We have a difference of opinion.

At the moment that the keeper's info is requested, I think we can agree that 'reasonable cause' exists because this relates to the driver's liability and it is not contingent upon whether the land is 'relevant'. 

A NTK is issued offering the keeper the options of:
Paying;
Passing to the driver; or
Appealing.

All perfectly fine.

IMO, if the data is then misused by its controller then it's an ICO matter on a case by case basis.

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.

Parking Charge Number (PCN): VCS23023633
Vehicle Registration: HG65VMX
Date Issued: 08/05/2025

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display throughout the site and seemingly visible in the vicinity of the vehicle, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed stop otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms as alleged by the Operator. I am satisfied on the evidence provided that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this site. I am further satisfied as to the location of the contravention, that the correct vehicle has been identified stopped at the time suggested in the images provided and that in the circumstances the correct Appellant is pursued. I have considered the correspondence sent to the Appellant I am satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice was correctly served and that the correspondence complies with current guidelines.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
"

As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

You should contact the operator within 28 days to make payment of the charge.

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

Latest is that I have a letter from DCBL and final reminder. Can you confirm I'm just ignoring these? Thanks