Free Traffic Legal Advice

You can email back to the morons at Moorside at help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and cc yourself with the following:

Quote

For the attention of: the person with conduct of this matter

Re: Your defective reply to your own Letter of Claim – demand for proper PAPDC compliance

Dear Sirs,

Your latest missive is an object lesson in how not to engage with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC) and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (PD-PACP). It neither addresses the requests set out in my response to your Letter of Claim, nor provides the documents you are obliged to disclose. Instead, you point me to a third-party web portal (which I have already stated I will not use), recite trade-association boilerplate about add-on charges, and then compound matters by demanding two different totals in the same letter (£170 and £340). This is not competent pre-action conduct.

Identify the author and person with conduct
Who wrote that response? Kindly have the individual who authored it identify themselves in full, state their role, and provide their SRA number (if any). If the author is unauthorised to conduct litigation, confirm the supervising solicitor who is responsible, with their SRA number. Put another way: who at your firm is willing to put their name to that letter and take responsibility for it?

Protocol and Practice Direction breaches
You have still failed to comply with PAPDC ¶¶3.1(a)–(d), 5.1–5.2, and PD-PACP ¶¶6(a) & 6(c). I asked—expressly and properly—for the core documents and information that any litigant must supply so the parties can understand each other’s position and attempt proportionate resolution. Instead of providing:

1. the NtK relied upon for any alleged PoFA liability,
2. the actual signage in place on the material date (not a stock image),
3. the precise contractual clause(s) allegedly breached,
4. the landowner authority/contract, and
5. a coherent breakdown of the principal sum and the basis in law for any add-ons,

—you offered none of it. You even asserted it is “unclear” why I would need to inspect your client’s standing to operate. It isn’t unclear; it is elementary. Locus standi is a threshold issue. If you cannot grasp why authority to contract and to sue matters, please pass this letter to a responsible adult at your firm who does.

Web portals
I will not engage with any web portal. That position has been stated and is entirely reasonable. Your pre-action obligations are not satisfied by outsourcing disclosure to an “evidence” portal. Send the documents by email or post.

Incoherent and inflated sums
Your letter simultaneously asserts an “outstanding balance” of £170 and demands payment of £340 within 7 days. Which is it? If you intend to place contradictory figures before the court, that is your prerogative, but do not expect the court to be impressed by arithmetic this poor.

Your reliance on ATA codes to justify a £70 “debt recovery” add-on is legally irrelevant. Trade-association codes are not law and cannot expand recoverable damages under contract or statute. Courts have repeatedly disallowed such add-ons as an abuse (see, e.g., Excel v Wilkinson [2020], and numerous small-claims decisions following it). Any attempt to plead the extra £70 (or to double it, as your £340 demand suggests) will be challenged and treated as unreasonable conduct.

Next steps
You were already told that, upon receipt of a compliant Letter of Claim and the documents requested, I will seek advice and provide a full response within 30 days, as the PAPDC contemplates. Instead of complying, you sent marketing copy and payment links. If you issue proceedings without first complying with PAPDC and PD-PACP, I will apply for an immediate stay pursuant to PD-PACP ¶15(b), seek an order compelling the missing documents, and invite the court to impose appropriate sanctions and costs (see Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch); Daejan Investments Ltd v Park West Club (2003) EWHC 2872; Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations [2007] EWHC 855).

Separately, your persistent refusal to comply with pre-action obligations, your attempt to force a portal, your presentation of contradictory balances, and your pursuit of unrecoverable add-ons will be the subject of a report to the SRA. This correspondence and your original Letter of Claim will be produced in support if you proceed to issue.

What you must now do (14 days)
Within 14 days, provide by email or post:

• the NtK relied upon (showing strict PoFA compliance, if alleged),
• contemporaneous photographs of the signage in situ on the material date,
• the exact contractual clause(s) allegedly breached,
• the landowner contract/authority to operate and to litigate, and
• a clear, lawful breakdown of the principal sum (with the legal basis for any sum above the face value of the PCN, which is denied).

Failing that, treat this as your final opportunity to rectify your non-compliance. If you remain unable to understand how litigation works, escalate this file to someone at your firm who does.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]
[Your contact details]

Replied, thank you!

So, what are you asking? The letter tells you exactly what they want to know from you.

Hello, I’ve received a response to my complaint, and the outcome does not appear favorable:

Your complaint about the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
Thank you for bringing us your concerns about the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
(the DVLA). We are sorry to hear about the distress and financial loss you suffered after
DVLA shared your information with a parking company.
We have completed our consideration of your complaint and we are writing to tell you the
outcome. To reach this decision we reviewed the information you provided. Having done
this, we have decided not to consider your complaint further.
We understand that our decision may be disappointing, but we will explain the reasons for
this and the factors we have considered.
Your complaint
You complain that DVLA mishandled the complaint you submitted in January 2025.
Specifically, DVLA failed to investigate the misuse of your data by a parking company.
As a result, you suffered distress and a financial loss. You have also lost confidence in the
DVLA.
By bringing your complaint to us you would like DVLA to investigate your concerns and
acknowledge and apologise for its error.
Background
You submitted a complaint to DVLA in April 2025 about a parking company with access to
DVLA data under a Keeper at Date of Event agreement. You are concerned with the
lawfulness of the company’s use of your data after it obtained it from DVLA.

Reasons for our decision
You say DVLA’s responses did not engage with the concerns you raised, the complaint was
about how the parking company had used your data. You also say DVLA failed to signpost
you.
In its first response DVLA said the parking company was a member of an Accredited Trade
Association for the parking industry, International Parking Community Ltd (IPC). Any
concerns about the actions of the parking company can be raised with the IPC. This advice
was reiterated in its final response which signposted you to an independent reviewer and
the Information Commissioner’s Office for your data handling concerns.
DVLA wrote to you again while you waited for a response from the reviewer. It explained
its role in the context of your complaint was limited to a consideration of whether the
release of your information to a third party met the reasonable cause provision.
DVLA acted in accordance with UK Central Government Complaint Standards, October
(2022), which say organisations should make sure they tell people about their right to
escalate a complaint to the next stage if they are not satisfied with the response at the
end of the organisation’s complaint process.
Our principles say public bodies should aim to ensure that customers are clear about their
entitlements; about what they can and cannot expect from the public body; and about
their own responsibilities. We consider DVLA made you aware of what it could do in the
context of your complaint. It also told you what you could do if you were concerned about
how it and the parking company used your data.
Data protection legislation, UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the
Data Protection Act 2108 (Section 165), control how your personal information is used by
organisations. If a person remains dissatisfied with the response they receive from the
organisation who used the data the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the most
appropriate organisation to complain to. We have not seen any indication DVLA failed to
handle your complaint appropriately or signpost you and it was right for them to direct
you to the ICO in this instance.
In summary, we have decided we will not take further action on your complaint. We hope
we have explained the thorough consideration we have given to our decision and clearly
outlined the reasons for it.

If you have any feedback about our service or decision, then please let me know within
one month of the date of this letter, using the details at the top of this letter.
We recognise that everyone has different needs and circumstances and these are likely to
influence the way you access our service. If you need this letter in a different format
please contact me to discuss your accessibility requirements.
Please note there are some important details about how we use your information at the
bottom of this letter.
Yours sincerely


Caseworker

The Ombudsman’s final letter reveals a shallow administrative review that fails to engage with the substance of your complaint and falls short of the Ombudsman’s own standards for public body oversight. It focuses narrowly on whether DVLA signposted you, while ignoring your actual grievance: that DVLA failed to investigate G24’s post-access misuse of your personal data — a duty it holds under the KADOE contract and its ongoing obligations as a data controller.

Here is a formal response to the Ombudsman’s decision, suitable as a feedback challenge to the caseworker (to be sent within their one-month time limit):

Quote

Subject: Feedback and Request for Reconsideration – DVLA Complaint Decision

Dear [Caseworker's Name],

Thank you for your letter regarding my complaint against the DVLA. I appreciate your time in reviewing the case. However, I must formally object to the outcome and request that the Ombudsman reconsider the decision not to take further action, for the following reasons.

1. Misframing of My Complaint

The summary presented in your decision does not reflect the actual substance of my complaint. My grievance has never been about whether the DVLA had reasonable cause to release my data. Nor have I suggested that the DVLA is responsible for adjudicating the parking charge itself.

The core of my complaint is that the DVLA failed to investigate credible and evidenced post-access misuse of my data by G24 Ltd, in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and Schedule 2 of the KADOE contract — terms under which DVLA continues to act as a joint data controller, even after data is released.

By refusing to investigate that misuse and instead offering template responses, the DVLA failed in its obligations as a public body and data controller. That failure is separate from the original data release decision and has not been addressed in your assessment.

2. Oversight Failure and Incomplete Analysis

Your decision centres on whether the DVLA “signposted” me to the ICO or the IPC. While that may fulfil a basic procedural requirement, it is entirely beside the point. The issue was not poor signposting, but a complete failure of regulatory oversight. My complaint set out in detail:

Material breaches of the PPSCoP by G24 Ltd, including:

 

• Pursuing a charge despite evidence of vehicle breakdown (Annex F1(c));
  • Misstating the payment period in the NtK (Section 8.3.1);
  • Escalating to debt collectors after ignoring a formal complaint.

• The DVLA’s ongoing responsibility under the KADOE contract and UK GDPR to investigate and address such misuse.
• The DVLA’s refusal to consider those breaches or conduct any form of enquiry, despite being notified.

Your letter makes no reference to these breaches, nor does it assess whether the DVLA’s refusal to investigate was proportionate, reasonable, or consistent with its public duty and role as data controller.

3. Misdirection Regarding the ICO

While I accept that the ICO handles general data protection matters, my complaint was not about a generic misuse of personal data. It concerned the DVLA’s contractual and procedural failure to act in accordance with the terms under which it supplies personal data to private companies.

That is not a matter for the ICO to resolve. It is a matter of maladministration by a government agency, and therefore squarely within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

4. Disregard for Public Interest Considerations

The letter fails to recognise the broader public interest in this complaint. This case raises systemic concerns:

• The DVLA's unwillingness to investigate misuse of sensitive personal data, even where clear Code of Practice breaches are identified;
• The total absence of regulatory accountability in the KADOE process once data is released;
• The fact that no redress mechanism exists for data subjects once a parking operator misuses their data, unless the DVLA chooses to act — which it demonstrably will not.

This is not an isolated complaint. It is emblematic of a wider failure of oversight that affects thousands of motorists. Dismissing such a case on administrative grounds without reviewing the substance contributes to that systemic failure.

5. Request for Reconsideration

Given the above, I request that this complaint be reconsidered by a senior investigator who can properly evaluate whether the DVLA's refusal to act in the face of a documented misuse of data amounts to maladministration.

If you maintain that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to assess whether the DVLA discharged its duties as a data controller under the KADOE contract, please confirm this in writing, with reference to your governing standards or exclusions.

I remain prepared to escalate the matter further if required, and I thank you in advance for ensuring a more thorough review.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Details]

Thank you, done!