Free Traffic Legal Advice

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Smart has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Smart have no hope at IAS, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

I am submitting a formal complaint against Smart Parking Ltd, an IPC AOS member with DVLA KADOE access, for breaching the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) after obtaining my personal data.

Smart Parking posted a Notice to Keeper (NtK) dated Thursday 12 June for an alleged contravention on Saturday 31 May. Because (a) more than 14 days elapsed between the day after the event and the date the NtK could be “given” (deemed delivery is the second working day after posting), and (b) Smart Parking nonetheless asserts keeper liability under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, the operator is misusing my data in breach of the PPSCoP and the KADOE contract.

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. I have attached a supporting statement that sets out the breach in detail and request a full investigation.

Please acknowledge receipt and confirm the reference number for this complaint.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP

Operator name: Smart Parking Ltd
Date of PCN (NtK) issue: Thursday 12 June 2025
Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]

I am submitting this complaint because Smart Parking Ltd has misused my personal data obtained from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper at Date of Event) contract.

Although Smart Parking may have had reasonable cause to request my data initially, its subsequent use of that data is unlawful. The operator has breached both the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).

Timeline:

• Alleged contravention date: Saturday 31 May 2025
• NtK issue date: Thursday 12 June 2025
• Earliest deemed date of service: Monday 16 June 2025

Under PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(5), the operator must deliver a Notice to Keeper within 14 days of the day after the date of the alleged contravention. In this case, the notice could not have been “given” (i.e. deemed delivered) until at least 16 days after the parking event — which is out of time for establishing keeper liability.

Despite this, Smart Parking's NtK falsely asserts that the registered keeper is liable under PoFA. This is a direct breach of Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, which states:

“The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.”

The NtK is therefore misleading and represents an unlawful use of DVLA-supplied data.

Summary of Breaches:

• Breach of PoFA – NtK issued too late for keeper liability
• Breach of PPSCoP 8.1.1(d) – NtK falsely states keeper liability applies
• Misuse of personal data – unlawful post-access processing under UK GDPR
• Breach of KADOE contract – DVLA data used in a way not permitted by the conditions of access

These are not minor or technical errors; they show a systemic disregard for lawful data use and statutory obligations.

Action requested:

The DVLA remains the data controller for keeper data released under KADOE and has a duty to act where it is misused. I therefore request:

• A formal investigation into Smart Parking Ltd’s misuse of DVLA data
• Confirmation of whether a breach of the KADOE contract has occurred
• Enforcement action including suspension or removal of KADOE access if appropriate

Please confirm receipt of this complaint and provide a reference number. I am happy to provide further information if needed.

Name: [INSERT NAME]
Date: [INSERT DATE]

To: kadoescalation@dvla.gov.uk

Subject: Step 2 Escalation – Mishandling of Step 1 Complaint Ref. [INSERT REFERENCE NO.] (Smart Parking PoFA Breach)

Dear DVLA Escalations Team,

I am writing to escalate my complaint to Step 2 of the DVLA’s complaint process, in relation to your reference [INSERT REFERENCE NO.], following the wholly inaccurate and inadequate response issued on 4 July 2025 by A. Larsen.

My original complaint concerned Smart Parking Ltd’s misuse of DVLA keeper data, specifically the unlawful assertion of keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), when the statutory conditions were clearly not met. I now also raise concerns about the incompetent handling of this complaint at Step 1 by your Data Assurance Team.

Summary of Material Facts:

• Contravention date: Saturday 31 May 2025
• NtK issue date: Thursday 12 June 2025
• Deemed “given” date: Monday 16 June 2025 (second working day after posting, as per PoFA Sch 4 para 9(6))

This means the Notice to Keeper was given 16 days after the day following the alleged contravention. PoFA paragraph 9(5) is unequivocal:

“The notice must be given by—
(a) delivering it to that address; or
(b) sending it by post to that address,
so that it is delivered within the relevant period.”

The relevant period, as defined in PoFA 9(5), is 14 days beginning with the day after the parking event (i.e. from 1 June 2025). Therefore, the final day for the NtK to be “given” was Saturday 14 June 2025.

Because the NtK was issued on Thursday 12 June and deemed delivered no earlier than Monday 16 June, it was not “given” within the relevant period. Therefore, keeper liability cannot arise, and Smart Parking’s assertion to the contrary constitutes a breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section 8.1.1(d), which prohibits operators from stating that the keeper is liable when they cannot be.

A. Larsen's Response – Factually and Legally Flawed:

Mr/Ms Larsen claims:

“To meet the requirements of PoFA, [the NtK] must be sent by day 12... to ensure that it arrives by day 14.”

This is factually wrong. PoFA requires the NtK to be “given” within 14 days, not merely posted. The law expressly states that delivery is what matters. Even if an NtK is posted on day 12, it is not “given” until the second working day later, as per PoFA paragraph 9(6). No exception is made for weekends.

The DVLA is the data controller and cannot be seen to condone or excuse this sort of misuse, especially based on a misunderstanding of the very legislation that governs access to its data.

I therefore expect:

• A full review and correction of the Step 1 response
• A formal finding that Smart Parking breached the KADOE contract and PPSCoP
• Confirmation that enforcement action is being considered or taken against Smart Parking
• Internal remedial action regarding Mr/Ms Larsen’s mishandling of this matter, given the seriousness of the misinterpretation of Schedule 4 of PoFA

I also request that DVLA include this complaint in its performance monitoring and audit records for misuse of data by private parking operators.

Please acknowledge receipt and confirm the escalation reference number for this Step 2 complaint. I am happy to provide further supporting material if needed.

Yours faithfully,

[YOUR FULL NAME]
[YOUR POSTCODE]
[DATE]

Quote

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.

The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to provide the following:

1. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not given within the relevant period, and therefore, keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) cannot apply. The alleged contravention took place on Saturday 31 May, and the NtK was issued on Thursday 12 June. Under the interpretation principles of "given" in PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(5), posting must allow for normal service—i.e. two working days. This means the earliest the notice could have been deemed “given” is Monday 16 June. That is 16 days after the alleged contravention. The legal limit is 14. The failure is clear, quantifiable, and fatal. PoFA compliance is binary.

The NtK either meets every requirement of Schedule 4, or it does not. There is no room for “substantial compliance”—nor can the operator claim technicality or ambiguity where the timelines are incontestable. The NtK itself is the evidence of non-compliance. No further proof or rebuttal is required. If the IAS assessor reading this genuinely holds legal qualifications, then they will know that partial compliance equals non-compliance. Keeper liability cannot apply where statutory conditions are breached. The driver remains unidentified, and the charge must therefore be cancelled.

2. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.

3. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.

In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:

• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.

These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.

4. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period as defined by the PPSCoP.

5. Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable.

6. Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)

7. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.

If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.

In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles.