Free Traffic Legal Advice

No one pays PCM if they follow the advice. The Notice to Driver (NtD) is not PoFA compliant and so they cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

There is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. Never use language such as "I did this or that". Always use "The driver did this or that".

Put this date in your diary and on the 8th February, you appeal the PCN as the Registered Keeper (RK) on their website with the following:

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 Driver (NtD) 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. PCM 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 NtD can only hold the driver liable. PCM have no hope at IAS, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Then you wait for the rejection.

Hi all, and thanks for your help thus far.  I've followed the steps so far and on cue, like you suggested, the rejection has arrived, attached below

If you could kindly let me know the next steps, it would be most appreicated.

thank you all for your time on this.

Send a formal complaint to PCM as follows:

Subject: Formal Complaint – Failure to Consider Keeper Appeal in Breach of the PPSCoP

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to formally complain about PCM’s failure to consider my appeal against Parking Charge Notice [PCN reference number], in clear breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) v1.1, which constitutes a serious non-compliance issue and a potential breach of PCM’s KADOE agreement with the DVLA.

Background

• A Notice to Driver (NtD) was issued on 12th January 2025.
• As the Registered Keeper, I submitted a timely appeal on 8th February 2025.
• PCM refused to process my appeal, claiming that as I had not identified the driver, I had to wait until an NtK was issued following a DVLA data request.
• PCM then issued an NtK on 24th February 2025 without allowing any appeal option—only demanding payment or driver identification.

PCM’s Breach of the PPSCoP

1. Failure to Consider My Appeal as the Registered Keeper

PCM’s refusal to process my appeal was a direct breach of Annex C of the PPSCoP, which explicitly states:

"Where an NTK follows an NTD, the keeper or hirer may appeal the parking charge if the driver has not previously been given the opportunity to appeal."

• The driver did not appeal the NtD.
• As the Registered Keeper, I had an absolute right to appeal the PCN.
• PCM had no justification to refuse my appeal or demand DVLA verification before considering it.

2. Procedural Abuse – Issuing an NtK Without an Appeal Option

Under Section 8.4 of the PPSCoP, PCM is required to provide a process for motorists to appeal a Parking Charge Notice. PCM’s NtK failed to offer this, instead presenting only the option to pay or name the driver.

This is a serious procedural failing that obstructs the appeals process and violates the standards required for fair enforcement under the PPSCoP.

Required Action

PCM must immediately:

1. Acknowledge this complaint in writing within 14 days, as per the PPSCoP.
2. Confirm that my original appeal is now being properly processed in accordance with the Code.
3. Provide a substantive response within 28 days, either cancelling the PCN or issuing a formal rejection with details of further appeal options.

Next Steps if PCM Fails to Comply

Should PCM fail to rectify this situation, I will escalate this as a formal complaint to the DVLA, as your failure to comply with the PPSCoP is a breach of your KADOE agreement. This could result in sanctions against PCM, including suspension from DVLA data access.

I expect your urgent attention to this matter and await your response.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Send a formal complaint to PCM as follows:

hello again

i just received these replies, can you kindly cast an eye and offer some assistance.  thank you

So, are you saying that the have sent you copies of the same documents you previously showed us? I see that there is an extra page you've shown which does have appeal information on it. Is that the back of one of the documents you previously showed us or is it a separate page that was not included originally?

I get the feeling they've sent the previous letter i mention in my last reply and it's crossed over with the email complaint we sent out, judging by the dates.  Regardless, I received this via eMail a couple of days ago




I assume i should ignore the previous step and now wait for the 14 day process?

Thanks again

Best

OK... here is what you do now. You should send the following complaint to the DVLA. You will edit the complaint as necessary with your details and sign it by typing your full name for the signature. You will then have to combine the letter with copies of the original NtD, the PCN response where they refuse to consider your appeal as the Keeper and anything else that is relevant into a single PDF file which cannot be larger than 19Mb.

You can use a free online tool such as this: https://www.pdf2go.com to combine the separate PDF pages into a single PDF document and also compress it is necessary to under 19.5Mb. When your document is ready, you go to the DVLA complaints webform, which is slightly convoluted: https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/complaints

You should start and then select the third option: "Making a complaint or compliment about the Vehicles service you have received".

You will then have to provide your personal details, your address and then your vehicle details. You will then be presented with webform in which you can put the following as covering information:

Dear DVLA KADOE Compliance Team,

Please find attached a formal complaint regarding Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd and their unlawful use of DVLA data via the KADOE system.

The attached PDF contains a detailed complaint and all supporting evidence. It demonstrates that PCM was already in possession of my full name, address, vehicle details, and PCN reference following a direct appeal submitted after a Notice to Driver was issued. Despite this, PCM applied to the DVLA for my data and issued a Notice to Keeper to the same address, thereby accessing personal data unnecessarily and in breach of both the KADOE contract and the UK GDPR (Article 5(1)(c)).

In addition, PCM is already in breach of the KADOE contract by virtue of their failure to comply with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, which is a mandatory requirement under the terms of their data access. Their refusal to process a valid Keeper appeal and misrepresentation of procedural rules are clear breaches of the PPSCoP.

I respectfully request that the DVLA investigates this matter and confirms what action will be taken in response.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]

The next step will let you upload your actual PDF complaint. Here is the draft wording for your actual complaint to the DVLA which should be saved as a PDF document once you have completed it and then, as already described above, combined with your other evidential correspondence into a single PDF file that is under 19.5Mb is size.

FORMAL COMPLAINT – UNLAWFUL KADOE DATA REQUEST BY PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LTD

To: DVLA KADOE Compliance Team

[Date]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am raising a formal complaint regarding Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd (PCM), who accessed my DVLA keeper data via the KADOE system despite already being in possession of all relevant personal details voluntarily provided by me during a valid appeal. This access was unnecessary, excessive, and in breach of both the KADOE contract and the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR).

Background Summary

Parking Operator: Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd
PCN Reference: [Insert PCN number]
VRM: [Insert vehicle registration]
Date of Alleged Contravention: [Insert date]

PCM issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by way of a Notice to Driver (NtD) affixed to my vehicle. This NtD failed to comply with the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), as it did not specify any “period of parking” — only a timestamp was shown.

This approach is legally inadequate. In the persuasive appellate decision Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], the court held that a single moment in time cannot amount to a “period of parking.” The judge confirmed that, although the whole period of parking does not need to be recorded, there must be at least some recorded duration, such as the minimum consideration period, particularly where there is no evidence that the driver accepted the parking terms and conditions and decided to leave.

Following receipt of the NtD, I submitted a formal appeal to PCM. In doing so, I:

• Identified myself as the registered keeper of the vehicle;
• Provided my full name and serviceable address;
• Confirmed the PCN reference number and vehicle registration.

This is the same data PCM would otherwise obtain via a KADOE request to the DVLA.

Misuse of DVLA Data

PCM responded by refusing to process my appeal, claiming that only the driver may appeal at that stage — a procedural misrepresentation with no basis in PoFA or the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). They then decided to reject the appeal and made a KADOE application to the DVLA for my keeper details and issued a Notice to Keeper (NtK) to the same name and address I had already provided voluntarily.

This request was wholly unnecessary, disproportionate, and made despite having already acquired the same information directly from me, which means it served no enforcement purpose. Under the KADOE contract, operators may only request DVLA data where it is necessary for the purpose of enforcing unpaid parking charges. That threshold was clearly not met.

The request also breached the principle of data minimisation under Article 5(1)(c) UK GDPR, which requires that only the minimum amount of personal data necessary be collected and processed.

Breach of the KADOE Contract

Importantly, PCM is already in breach of the KADOE contract by virtue of failing to comply with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which is a mandatory condition of KADOE access.

Specifically:

• They misrepresented the appeal process by falsely claiming that only the driver could appeal at the NtD stage;
• They refused to engage with a valid representation made by the registered keeper;
• They made a duplicate request for data they already held, in contravention of both the PPSCoP and the KADOE agreement.

These actions undermine the fair and lawful use of DVLA keeper data and clearly fall outside the scope of permissible access under the KADOE terms.

Relief Requested

I request that the DVLA:

1. Investigates this misuse of personal data and breach of the KADOE contract by Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd;
2. Confirms that this operator has accessed data outside the permitted purpose;
3. Advises what remedial or enforcement action will be taken in response, including any warning, suspension, or review of KADOE access.

Attached to and in support of this complaint, I include:

• My original appeal (with personal details and PCN reference);
• PCM’s response refusing to process it;
• A copy of the NtD and subsequent NtK;
• Related correspondence.

Please confirm receipt of this complaint and keep me informed of the outcome of your investigation.

Yours faithfully,

[Full Name]
[Postal Address]
[Email Address]
[Phone Number]

I also advise you to make contact with your MP and have get them involved in this matter. You can ask your MP to intervene on your behalf with the IPC. Here is a draft message you could send to your MP. (Find your MP)

Dear [MP’s Name],

I am writing to request your assistance with a serious concern regarding the conduct of a private parking operator, Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd (PCM), and its Accredited Trade Association, the International Parking Community (IPC).

PCM unlawfully accessed my DVLA Keeper data via the KADOE system, despite having already received my full name, postal address, and vehicle details in a direct appeal submitted after a Notice to Driver (NtD) was issued. They later issued a Notice to Keeper (NtK) to the same name and address I had already supplied — an entirely unnecessary duplication, in breach of both the DVLA’s KADOE contract and the data minimisation principle under Article 5(1)(c) of the UK GDPR.

To compound this, PCM refused to consider my valid appeal on the false premise that only the driver could appeal at that stage, which misrepresents the law and contradicts the requirements of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). Their conduct demonstrates a broader pattern of disregard for regulatory compliance.

As a result, I have submitted a formal complaint to the DVLA (copy enclosed), but I would be grateful for your support in the following ways:

1. Raise a Parliamentary Question

Would you be willing to submit a Written Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Transport, asking:

"What guidance does the DVLA issue to private parking operators regarding the prohibition of unnecessary or duplicate KADOE data requests where a data subject has already provided their name and address voluntarily?"

A related question could ask:

"How many operators have had access to DVLA data suspended or investigated in the past 12 months due to breaches of the KADOE contract or non-compliance with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice?"

2. Submit a Complaint to the IPC on My Behalf

Given the IPC’s well-known reluctance to engage meaningfully with complaints from the general public, I would be grateful if you could escalate my complaint to the IPC directly. My concern relates to:

• PCM’s refusal to process a valid appeal;
• Its non-compliance with the PPSCoP;
• It's improper use of DVLA data despite already possessing the information.

As the IPC is a self-regulatory body, I believe they are more likely to respond appropriately to a formal enquiry or complaint made by a Member of Parliament.

3. Support for the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019

Finally, I respectfully ask you to lend your support to the full commencement and implementation of the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. This legislation received Royal Assent nearly six years ago but remains dormant, while unregulated and inconsistent practices continue to harm motorists — particularly vulnerable groups.

The existing system of self-regulation has clearly failed to prevent abuses, and I believe Parliamentary support for activating the statutory Code is long overdue.

I enclose my full DVLA complaint and supporting evidence. Thank you very much for your time and consideration of this matter. I would be extremely grateful for your assistance and hope this issue may also be raised further with the Department for Transport if appropriate.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email Address]
[Your Phone Number]

No, the creditor is not entitled to apply to the DVLA for the Keeper’s details if the Keeper has already come forward and provided their name and serviceable address.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) only allows the creditor to pursue the Keeper if certain conditions are met. One of those conditions, in paragraph 5(1)(b), is that the creditor must not know the name and address of the driver and therefore cannot take steps to enforce against them.

If the Keeper voluntarily provides their full name and serviceable address, that condition is no longer met. As a result, the right to rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the Keeper no longer applies.

Paragraph 11 of PoFA does require that the creditor has made a request to the DVLA for Keeper details if they intend to pursue the Keeper under PoFA. But that only applies if all the earlier conditions are still met — including not already knowing who the Keeper is. So paragraph 11 doesn’t override the earlier condition in paragraph 5(1)(b), it just adds to it.

Therefore, if the creditor already has the Keeper’s name and address, and the NtD is not compliant with PoFA (as in this case), then they cannot lawfully apply to the DVLA for the Keeper’s details. Doing so would be a breach of PoFA, a breach of the DVLA’s KADOE contract, and a breach of UK GDPR.

As far as KADOE is concerned:

KADOE Contract – Clause B2 and B2.1

The KADOE contract sets out the conditions under which data can be requested:

B2.1: "The Customer [i.e. the operator] shall only request Data where it is necessary for the enforcement of the parking terms and conditions in accordance with the reasonable cause criteria."

And in Annex A (paragraph 2):

“The processing of DVLA data must be necessary and proportionate for the purposes of identifying the Keeper of a vehicle when pursuing unpaid parking charges.”

There is nothing in the KADOE contract that permits a request for the purposes of verifying or double-checking already supplied Keeper details. Indeed, the contract requires that the data request be necessary and proportionate. Once the operator has received a name and serviceable address from someone stating they are the Keeper, the bar for “necessity” is no longer met.