Free Traffic Legal Advice

I parked yesterday but unfortunately could not wholly park within parking bay due to an column structure which prevented drivers door from opening after parking.
* Unfortunately this was the only space available.
* If I parked within bay, I would not be able to open door.
* this was the only space and I was not obstruction any car within area.
* The enforcement officer knew there was a column preventing me from parking properly but suprisingly, ommitted pictures showing obstruction, which makes me wonder if this was done on purpose.

I kindly need advice on how to approach h this situation.Do you suggest I pay fine or is there any way around this?


Draft letter - Whee do I send this to, please?
Any ammendment would be very helpful.

=======================
I am writing to challenge the issuance of Penalty Charge Notice [PCN number] issued on [date] at [location].

I acknowledge that my vehicle was not wholly within the marked bay. However, I would like to explain that this was due to an unavoidable physical obstruction — a fixed column structure located adjacent to the bay — which prevented me from opening the driver’s door had I parked fully within the bay lines.

At the time of parking:

* This was the only available space in the area.
* Parking fully within the bay would have made it impossible to safely exit the vehicle, and I had no other practical parking alternative.
* I made every effort to park responsibly and was not causing any obstruction to other vehicles or to the general flow of traffic.

I am particularly concerned that the enforcement officer's photographic evidence omits the presence of this fixed obstruction, which was a key factor in the circumstances. I believe this omission presents an incomplete and potentially misleading account of the situation.

I have attached photographs taken afterward that clearly show the column and its proximity to the bay. These demonstrate that the obstruction would have physically prevented the opening of my driver’s door had I parked fully within the bay markings.

Given the exceptional circumstances, the absence of obstruction to others, and the practical limitations I faced, I kindly request that you exercise discretion and cancel the penalty notice.
===================




[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thanks for the guide.
I have provided the site signage.


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

What do you mean by “get out of hand”?

There is no way this could ever “get out of hand”. PPE have now started digging a hole for themselves by breaching the KADOE contract with the DVLA by requesting your data after you already provided them with your name and address as the Registered Keeper.

The “Reminder Notice” is the Notice to Keeper (NtK) which is not PoFA compliant. They don’t know who the driver is and they cannot hold the Keeper liable. That doesn’t mean that they will not try and blag their way through the process, in the hope that you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who will simply pay up out of ignorance and fear.

For now, you need to make a formal complaint to the DVLA. Here’s how to make a DVLA complaint:


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:

I am submitting a formal complaint against Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd, an IPC AOS member with DVLA KADOE access, for unlawfully obtaining my personal data when no reasonable cause existed to do so.

This is not a complaint about misuse after data release — it concerns the fact that there was no lawful basis for the data request in the first place. The parking company was already in possession of both the name and a serviceable address for the registered keeper before making their KADOE request.

A formal appeal was submitted on 2 May 2025, naming the keeper and providing a full postal address. The operator responded to this email and deliberately refused to engage with it, clearly intending to fabricate a justification for accessing DVLA data they already held. This is a breach of the DVLA’s KADOE contract and a misuse of personal data under UK GDPR.

I have attached a supporting statement and evidence showing that the keeper’s data was provided before any DVLA access. Please investigate this breach and confirm the outcome, including the exact date Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd accessed my data and what action will be taken in response.

Then you could upload the following as a PDF file for the formal complaint itself:

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Complaint to DVLA – Unlawful Request for Keeper Data

Operator name: Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd
Date of PCN issue: 5 April 2025
Vehicle registration: KP68 DLF

I am submitting this complaint to report that Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd unlawfully obtained my keeper data from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) contract. In this case, the parking company already knew the name and address of the registered keeper before making the data request. There was no legal basis for them to access the DVLA database.

The KADOE contract only permits a request where the parking operator does not already hold “the full name and serviceable address of the registered keeper or the driver.” That condition was not satisfied.

On 2 May 2025, I submitted a formal appeal to PPE by email, clearly identifying myself as the registered keeper and providing my full name and a valid UK postal address for service. PPE replied to that email, proving that they received and read it. However, they deliberately refused to treat it as an appeal and instead told me to use their online portal, which is irrelevant and contrary to PoFA 2012 and data protection principles.

Despite being in possession of the keeper’s name and address, PPE then unlawfully accessed DVLA data — an action that was not justified by any reasonable cause and was clearly designed to give the appearance of compliance with PoFA and to maintain pressure on the registered keeper by invoking DVLA authority.

It should also be noted that neither the Notice to Driver issued on 5 April 2025 nor the subsequent postal notice dated 5 May 2025 are compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The postal notice purports to act as a Notice to Keeper and appears to rely on PoFA to assert keeper liability, but it fails to comply with key statutory requirements. Specifically:

• The notice fails to specify the “period of parking,” instead giving only a single timestamp, which breaches paragraph 9(2)(a);
• There is no invitation for the keeper to either pay the charge or provide the name and address of the driver, contrary to paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).

These are not trivial omissions — they are statutory requirements. PPE is relying on PoFA to claim keeper liability despite failing to meet the minimum conditions required by law. This reinforces that their use of my DVLA data was not only unlawful in timing, but is now also being used to pursue a claim that has no lawful foundation.

This is not a case of misusing data after access. The access itself was unlawful. By refusing to accept a validly submitted appeal and pretending the keeper was unknown, PPE have deliberately circumvented the rules of the KADOE contract and misused personal data held by the DVLA.

I am requesting that the DVLA:

• Confirms the date and time PPE accessed my data
• Acknowledges that the data was obtained without reasonable cause
• Investigates the breach fully and records this misuse
• Considers suspension or termination of PPE’s KADOE access if appropriate

Attached are copies of:

• The email appeal sent on 2 May 2025
• PPE’s dismissive response
• The ‘Reminder Notice’ subsequently issued

These show beyond any doubt that PPE had my data before they contacted the DVLA and that they are subsequently using that data unlawfully.

Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]
Date: [INSERT TODAY’S DATE]

You can noe escalate the complaint to Step 2. The response you have received is the standard fob-off. The procedure for the step 2 complaint is exactly the same as the Step 1 except that the link to the complaint for is now yo 'Head of Complaints':

https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/head-of-complaints

Here’s how to make a DVLA Step 2 complaint:


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:

I am submitting a Step 2 escalation complaint following the unsatisfactory response received from Carly Williams on 19 May 2025 (Reference: 0403600).

This is not a complaint about the interpretation of PoFA or about whether an operator can pursue a charge outside PoFA. My complaint concerns the unlawful access of my personal data by Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd, despite the fact that they were already in possession of both the full name and serviceable address of the keeper.

DVLA's own KADOE contract prohibits data release in such circumstances, and the justification offered at Step 1 misrepresents the issue entirely. I have attached a supporting statement, which includes full documentation showing that the data was accessed after the keeper’s details had already been supplied directly to the operator in writing.

Please escalate this matter for review by the Head of Complaints and provide a written response and case reference.

Then you could upload the following as a PDF file for the formal complaint itself:

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

DVLA Step 2 Complaint – Unlawful Keeper Data Access

Operator name: Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd 
Date of PCN issue: 5 April 2025 
DVLA Case Reference: 0403600 
Vehicle registration: KP68 DLF

This is a Step 2 escalation following an unsatisfactory response from Carly Williams dated 19 May 2025.

This complaint is not about the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) or whether the operator can pursue a charge through other means. It is about the unlawful access of DVLA keeper data when no such access was justified, as the operator was already in possession of the keeper’s name and address prior to their KADOE request.

The Step 1 response ignores this entirely and instead focuses on PoFA, which is irrelevant to the point at hand. The key facts are as follows:

• On 2 May 2025, I submitted a written appeal to Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd via email. That appeal clearly identified me as the registered keeper and provided a valid UK service address.
• PPE responded to that email, acknowledging receipt and refusing to engage because I did not use their website portal — which has no legal standing and is not required for a valid appeal.
• On 5 May 2025, Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd made a request to the DVLA for keeper data.

At the time of their request, they already had the keeper’s name and address, and therefore did not have reasonable cause to access DVLA data. This is a direct breach of the KADOE contract, which states:

“The Customer shall not request Keeper details… where it already holds the name and address of the Registered Keeper or Driver.”

DVLA’s duty as data controller includes ensuring that the legal basis for access is met. The operator deliberately ignored the appeal to manufacture a false justification for accessing DVLA data. That access was unlawful.

In addition, the operator is now attempting to rely on Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 to assert keeper liability, despite issuing a non-compliant Notice to Keeper that fails to meet the statutory requirements, including:

• No “period of parking” stated, contrary to paragraph 9(2)(a);
• No invitation to pay or provide driver details, contrary to paragraph 9(2)(e).

While the PoFA non-compliance is not the basis of this complaint, it adds further weight to the fact that DVLA-supplied data is being misused to pursue a claim based on legal provisions that do not apply.

This is a serious breach. I am therefore requesting that DVLA:

• Escalates this matter to the Head of Complaints;
• Acknowledges that a breach of the KADOE contract occurred;
• Confirms what enforcement action will be taken against PPE.

I have attached the original Step 1 complaint, PPE’s response, my 2 May email, and the subsequent “Reminder Notice” issued by the operator.


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

As expected, it is another standard fob-off and does not address the actual complaint.

Your complaint was that Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd (PPEL) unlawfully requested your keeper data even though they already had your name and address from your email sent on 2 May 2025. The DVLA has ignored this and simply repeated their usual generic statements about “reasonable cause” and PoFA, which are not relevant. The key issue is that under the KADOE contract, the operator must not request data if they already have the keeper’s details. The DVLA has avoided addressing this.

The next step is to escalate the complaint to the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA). You are now entitled to do this because both Step 1 and Step 2 have been completed.

To escalate to the ICA:


Here is a suggested text you can use in the complaint form or email:

I am escalating this complaint to the Independent Complaints Assessor following unsatisfactory responses from the DVLA at both Step 1 and Step 2 of their complaints process. The DVLA reference number is 0404670.

My complaint is about an unlawful KADOE data request made by Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd on 5 May 2025 in relation to vehicle registration KP68DLF. On 2 May 2025, I had already sent an email to the operator identifying myself as the registered keeper and providing my full name and UK serviceable address. The operator acknowledged this email. The KADOE contract clearly states that a request must not be made if the name and address of the keeper or driver is already held. This condition was not met.

The DVLA’s responses at Step 1 and Step 2 failed to address this and instead gave general explanations about “reasonable cause” and PoFA, which do not apply here. This shows that they did not properly investigate or apply the terms of their own KADOE contract. They have not responded to the actual substance of my complaint.

I am asking the ICA to review how the DVLA handled this complaint, including their failure to follow their own rules and their refusal to acknowledge a clear data breach.

My understanding of the ICA was that the body to whom you originally complained (in your case the DVLA) had to be the ones to refer your complaint to them, at your request. In fact, I did this myself fairly recently. After DVLA dismissed my stage 2 complaint, I used the reply form on DVLA website to ask them to refer the matter to the ICA, and received confirmation they had done so, alongside a promise that the ICA would contact me directly in due course.

You could include words to a similar effect to those in b789's previous reply to do so.

A debt agency have no power to issue a CCJ - it stands for County Court Judgement, and as the name suggests, can only be imposed by a county court.

To end up with a CCJ visible on the public record (affecting your credit rating), all of the following would need to happen:

• A County Court claim issued against you
• You lose in court
• You fail to pay the judgement in time

So, even if this went all the way to court and you lost, you'd only end up with a CCJ on the record if you didn't pay the judgement.

What does the letter from Gladstones say?

The letter does NOT even mention the word "fine" so get it out of your head that you are liable for some form of statutory penalty! You are disputing it and they are going to litigate over it. That is good for you. Should it ever get as far as a hearing in court, (this is civil matter, not a criminal matter) you have an opportunity to explain your side of events to a truly impartial arbiter, a judge.

Gladstones never issue CPR16.4(1)(a) compliant claims and there is a high likelihood that a claim issued by them will be struck out. As already explained, in the unlikely event that this progresses all the way to an actual hearing, even if you were to be unsuccessful and a judgment is made against you, you still have no CCJ on your credit file as long as the judgment amount is paid within 30 days. It is completely expunged from the record. So, no danger of a CCJ affecting you.

Also, any claim, when it is made, will include a fake added £60 or £70 which is never allowed even if you are unsuccessful, so you'd not be paying the amount of the claim if you were one of the very few unlucky ones.

For now, simply respond the LoC with the following:

Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C].

If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. Your client is therefore unable to rely on PoFA to establish keeper liability.

As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable and vexatious conduct under Part 27.14(2)(g)

Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents/information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.
7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged contravention.
11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]