Free Traffic Legal Advice

You're not the registered keeper, but you were keeping the vehicle at the relevant time in your capacity as the hirer. As long as your actual appeal makes clear the capacity in which you are appealing that should be fine.

You are not saying the driver is "unknown". We are saying that the driver is "unknown" to the operator. All you are saying, as the Hirer, is that you decline to identify the driver and there is no legal obligation on you to do so to an unregulated private parking firm.

PCN [ref] – VRM [VRM] – Comments on Operator Evidence (rebuttal)

1. Status. I am the hirer, not the “keeper”. For a hire vehicle the operator must comply strictly with PoFA Sch 4 paras 13–14. Their evidence contains no para 13(2) enclosures.

2. Warden ticket + same-day notice. The operator says a warden ticket was issued 30/07/2025 and a “Notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR)” was sent the same day. That sequence is incompatible with PoFA for a warden (NtD) case. In any event, with a hire vehicle, the operative notice is a Notice to Hirer that also satisfies paras 13–14. It doesn’t.

3. Hire-vehicle documents missing (fatal). To transfer liability to a hirer the operator must serve a Notice to Hirer enclosing (i) a copy of the hire agreement and (ii) a statement of liability signed by the hirer (para 13(2)), within the para 14 timeframe. These documents are absent. Therefore no hirer liability arises.

4. Burden of proof. The operator’s line “we have not received anything to state [the hirer] was not driving” is irrelevant. There is no obligation to identify the driver. The operator must either prove the driver or comply with PoFA. It has done neither.

5. Octopus EV letter. The operator relies on a third-party letter that mislabels the charge as a “fine/offence” and asserts I was the “driver”. Octopus was not present; this is inaccurate hearsay and is not proof of driver identity. It cannot remedy PoFA defects.

6. Signage – ambiguity and inconsistency. The sign provided states:

“You must park wholly within a marked bay. No parking on roadways / yellow lines / paved / hatched or landscaped areas.”

(a) The entire car park surface is paved, including marked bays. The phrase “no parking on … paved … areas” renders the terms ambiguous/contradictory.
(b) The ticket alleges parking on a “pavement”, yet the sign never uses that word and gives no clear boundary between a permitted marked bay and any allegedly prohibited paved area. Ambiguous terms are construed against the drafter; they cannot found a charge.

7. Contract vs prohibition. The operator pleads a contractual charge, but its wording is essentially prohibitive with no clear offer for the area complained of. If the area is prohibited, it cannot create a contract by “breach”. If it is contractual, the terms are unclear and not capable of acceptance with informed consent.

. Saying “timestamped photos advise how long the vehicle was observed” is not proof of a continuous period outside any consideration/grace allowance or proof of parking rather than a brief stop. The operator should produce the observation log and a continuous sequence; they have not.

9. Authority. The operator asserts the charge is “based in Contract”. They must show contemporaneous landowner authority permitting enforcement and proceedings in their own name. None has been exhibited.

Conclusion: Driver identity is unproven; PoFA hire-vehicle requirements are not met (paras 13–14 and timing/sequence); the signage is ambiguous/internally inconsistent for the alleged location; standing is unproven; and the third-party letter is not evidence of the driver. The appeal must be allowed.

Subject: Complaint & rectification notice – inaccurate identification of “driver” re PCN [PCN ref], VRM [VRM]

To: penalties@octopusev.com
Cc: customerservice@octopusev.com; data-protection@octopusev.com

From: [Hirer’s full name], Hirer of vehicle [VRM]

Date: [insert]

Dear Penalties Team / Data Protection Officer,

Re: National Parking Control Ltd – PCN [ref]; vehicle [VRM]; event date [dd/mm/yyyy]

I am the hirer. Your letter dated [date] (headed “Notice of Representation”) appears in the operator’s evidence. It contains serious errors that prejudice my appeal:

• You misdescribe a private parking charge as a “fine/offence.”
• You state that I was the driver despite having no first-hand knowledge.
• You purport to transfer liability while ignoring the hire-vehicle regime in PoFA Sch 4 paras 13–14.

Why your “driver” assertion is inaccurate and unreasonable
The vehicle is insured under the lease and, as you know, only the hirer is named by default unless a nominated driver is added. That administrative fact does not evidence who was driving at the material time. Someone else could have been driving under their own cover, under temporary cover, as a garage/valet/breakdown operative, or unlawfully (which you cannot assume to be the case). In short, you had no evidential basis to assert I was the driver.

This is a breach of UK GDPR:

• Accuracy (Art 5(1)(d)) – you disclosed inaccurate personal data by asserting I was the driver.
• Data minimisation (Art 5(1)(c)) – naming a “driver” was unnecessary to the stated purpose.
• Fairness/lawfulness (Art 5(1)(a)) – the “fine/offence” language is misleading.

What I require

Please action the following:

1. Rectification (within 48 hours): confirm you do not know who the driver was; correct your records; and notify the operator that any suggestion I was the driver, and any references to “fine/offence,” are withdrawn as inaccurate. Please copy me.

2. Explanation (within 7 days): tell me exactly what you relied upon to label me the “driver” (templates, policies, staff guidance, or an inference from insurance), and the lawful basis for each disclosure made about me in this matter. Provide copies of all communications you sent to the operator.

3. Assurance (within 7 days): confirm your templates and staff guidance will be corrected so that future correspondence (a) refers to “hirer,” not “driver,” unless evidenced, and (b) does not describe private charges as “fines/offences.”

I reserve all rights, including seeking compensation under Article 82 UK GDPR / s.168 DPA 2018 and escalating to the ICO, should your error cause loss or further prejudice. Nothing in this complaint admits the identity of the driver.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]

As my lease is about to end, I am thinking to not complain as of now. But would note this for future.

Quote from: 8vaibhav on August 20, 2025, 02:22:09 pm

As my lease is about to end, I am thinking to not complain as of now. But would note this for future.

That is a bit silly. You are entitled to compensation for any breach of your GDPR.

They have dobbed you in it with the IAS, so that is not going to end successfully for you. You can easily fight this all the way through the eventual county court claim but I suspect, based on your response above, that you are going to try and settle for the mugs discount.