Free Traffic Legal Advice

Totally they have disregarded everything I have said.

I have not yet sent the DVLA letter but I will make this a top priority and send them the complaint today 03/04/2025.

So would I assume the process now is to just wait for the letter of claim and ignore all letters from anyone.

thanks

Here is an updated letter from DCB legal who are now threatening me.

Do I continue to ignore them ?

Also after speaking to DVLA they have ignored my complaint and say that G24 was allowed to access my information, i have attached their response.

thanks

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thank you for the response. I will now do the email and will follow up the stage 2 with DVLA

to DCB shall i disclose my letter to them so they know who i am or the reference number that is provided?

thanks

Hi all,
I’ve just received DVLA’s Stage 2 reply regarding my complaint about the release of my data to G24 Ltd. Unfortunately, the response seems generic and doesn’t address key concerns I raised.

Here’s what they said in brief:

DVLA insists the data release was lawful and part of a system of “industry self-regulation.”

They claim once G24 receives my data, they become the data controller and DVLA has no further responsibility.

They suggest complaints about G24 should go to their trade association.

They say there’s no evidence of legal breach and refer me to the ICO if I’m still dissatisfied.

Here are 2 emails from the INDEPENDENT COMPLAINTS ASSESSOR       

    INDEPENDENT COMPLAINTS ASSESSOR
    Department for Transport
DfT Complaints Team - for the attention of Stephen Shaw
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 4DR
 
(By preference, contact should be made by email to: ica.stephen-shaw@dft.gov.uk or by text or voicemail to 07585 997505.  If using standard post, please also alert the ICA by one of the other means.)


Mr
                                 My reference: 185 (25/26)

By email to: ----------------------@gmail.com




31 August 2025
Dear Mr M

YOUR COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DRIVER AND VEHICLE LICENSING AGENCY (DVLA)
 
I write further to your correspondence about the independent complaint assessor (ICA) review of your complaint.  I am the ICA to whom your case has been referred, and I am formally acknowledging receipt of your complaint and associated papers that the DVSA has provided.
 
I have obviously not yet read or considered the file, but I can see your complaint concerns the release of your data by the DVLA to a private parking company.

I have set out our role as ICAs in an annex to this letter.  We are neither civil servants nor employees of the Department for Transport or the DVLA.  We cannot challenge or overturn a decision made by the DVLA in line with its policies or require it to change its policies.  However, we may assess if it has administered its policies correctly and acted consistently with them.  The DVLA is in the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Ombudsman and we refer where relevant to the Ombudsman’s Principles in judging whether the DfT or one of its delivery bodies, including the DVLA, has acted reasonably.   We must take a proportionate approach, weighing carefully the merits of individual complaints with the operational realities of the delivery bodies.
 
We allocate the equivalent of three working days per week to DfT cases and may not be able to reply immediately to communications.  Our normal time target for reviews is three months, but I hope to revert to you well within that time.

We prefer email communications as they get to us directly (terrestrial post is referred on to us by the DfT, adding time to the process).  We will make any adjustment that we can to be of assistance. 

Please tell us if we should adjust our approach to communicate better with you.  If you intend to write to us using Royal Mail it would be helpful to know in advance so we can ask DfT staff to be sure to refer correspondence to us as soon as possible.

Good wishes.
 
Yours sincerely

 
Stephen Shaw
Independent Complaints Assessor
 
 
Encl:  Annex setting out ICA jurisdiction
 
Annex: Summary of ICA role and jurisdiction
 
The ICAs are independent of the DfT and its delivery bodies and not civil servants.
 
They look at whether the DfT or its delivery body handled a complaint properly and gave a reasonable decision.  The DfT/delivery body will send relevant correspondence and documents to the ICA within 15 working days of the customer’s request for ICA review.
 
If the delivery body and customer both believe referral to the ICA won’t resolve the complaint, then with the agreement of the ICA, the ICA doesn’t have to consider it.  Instead, the complainant can ask an MP to refer their case to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).
 
The ICA will aim to review the case within three months of receipt. They’ll say if they expect it to take longer.
 
When the ICA has reviewed the case, they’ll tell both sides the outcome and if they’ve made any recommendations.  This ends their involvement 
 
The ICA can look at complaints about:
 
•   bias or discrimination, unfair treatment, poor or misleading advice
 
•   failure to give information, mistakes, unreasonable delays
 
•   inappropriate staff behaviour.
 
The ICA can’t look at:
 
•   disputes where the principal focus is upon Government, DfT, or DfT public body policy
 
•   contractual disputes, complaints about the law, matters considered by Parliament
 
•   matters where only a court, tribunal or other body can decide the outcome
 
•   decisions taken by independent boards or panels
 
•   an ongoing investigation / enquiry or legal case
 
•   the handling of requests for information under DPA, EIR & FOI
 
•   personnel and disciplinary decisions or actions
 
•   any professional judgment by a specialist, including, for example, the clinical decisions of doctors or the judgments of driving and vehicle examiners.
 
 
Also, the ICA can’t usually look at any complaint that:
 
•   hasn’t completed all stages of the DfT/delivery body complaints process
 
•   is more than three months old from the date of the final response2
 
•   any complaint that has been, or is being, investigated by the PHSO.

2ND EMAIL BELOW

            INDEPENDENT COMPLAINTS ASSESSOR
    Department for Transport
DfT Complaints Team - for the attention of Stephen Shaw
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 4DR
 
(By preference, contact should be made by email to: ica.stephen-shaw@dft.gov.uk or by text or voicemail to 07585 997505.  If using standard post, please also alert the ICA by one of the other means.)


Mr                               My reference: 185 (25/26)
By email to: ---------------------@gmail.com

16 September 2025
Dear Mr M

YOUR COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DRIVER AND VEHICLE LICENSING AGENCY (DVLA)

I write further to my letter of 31 August regarding the independent review of your complaint against the DVLA.

As I explained, I am one of the Independent Complaint Assessors (ICAs) contracted to the Department for Transport, and your case was allocated for my consideration.

Complaint

You complained that, after the DVLA had released your data to a private parking company (G24 Ltd), the data was misused.  You argue that the DVLA remains responsible for the use of its data after its release.

For its part, the DVLA position is that it does not and cannot ‘police’ the activities of private parking companies, beyond ensuring that they are members of an Accredited Trade Association (ATA) if they are to receive DVLA data.  The Agency says your grievance is one for the relevant ATA (in this case the International Parking Community - IPC).  In addition, any concerns you may have about the DVLA’s handling would be a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office.

 
Jurisdiction
 
Before setting out the facts of this case and my views, I should first explain the nature of the ICA role.   The Introduction to the ICA terms of reference reads as follows:   
 
“The overall aims of the independent complaints assessor (ICA) process are to:
 
•   put right any injustice or unfairness suffered by members of the public as customers or in consequence of the actions, inactions, or decisions of DfT
•   improve services delivered through DfT and its public bodies
•   provide assurance that DfT has followed proper procedures, and that maladministration has not occurred”   
 
Further paragraphs read:     
 
“Relevant factors for a detailed review are:
 
•   the complainant has, or might have, suffered significant injustice, loss or hardship
•   DfT’s handling of the complaint has been poor.  For example, it has failed to conduct a proportionate and reasonable investigation and has failed to apply an appropriate remedy
•   DfT has asked the ICA to review the case
•   an ICA review may assist in a wider process of organisational learning from the complaint and of promoting consistency and fairness

“Relevant factors against a detailed review are:
 
•   DfT has investigated the complaint properly and has found no administrative failure or mistake
•   the complainant objects to the DfT policy or legislation
•   the complainant has exercised or has a right of appeal, reference or review through another avenue, for example tribunal or legal proceedings
•   the essence of a complaint is a contractual or commercial dispute
•   a detailed review would be disproportionate

“Having considered the previous factors, the ICA may decide that subjecting the complaint to a detailed review would not meet the overall aims of the ICA review process.”

The protocol to the terms of reference sets out a list of exclusions to the ICA remit.  These include:

•   disputes where the principal focus is upon government or DfT policy
•   complaints about the law

I must emphasise that the ICAs cannot adjudicate on the legality of the DVLA’s supply of keeper data to private parking companies.  In a parallel case to your own, one of my colleagues has written as follows:

“Nor is the DVLA an actual or proxy regulator for this sector, so complaints about the legal footing and procedural basis behind a PCN [parking charge notice] need to go down the prescribed appeal route, not to the Agency or us.  Complaints about unlawful data release, you will understand, are for the ICO [Information Commissioner’s Office] that has fully approved the DVLA’s practice of releasing keeper data for the investigation of potential liability under the reasonable cause provision (in other words, the DVLA does not have to satisfy itself of the legitimacy of a request before data release).  A complaint to the DVLA that a request for data from a private parking company was erroneous, meaning that the DVLA should not have released the data, does not get off the ground.
 
“Approaching 41,000 drivers are issued with PCNs by private firms each day, underlining the impossibility of the DVLA investigating each request individually.  We are precluded from commenting on the content and pursuit of policy by the DVLA.  In my view, a political move in an area of widespread public concern is required to change the current arrangement.”

Review

The DVLA records show that you applied to register vehicle CY11 UKA in October 2024 and a registration certificate (V5C) was issued at the end of the month.  In December 2024, G24 Ltd made a request for data in relation to an event on 9 December involving CY11 UKA.   The request was made under the terms of G24 Ltd’s KADOE (Keeper at date of event) contract with the DVLA.

On 7 April 2025, you made a complaint to the DVLA in the following terms:

 
Your supporting statement  included the following:

 
After listing what you said were breaches of the industry code of practice, you added:

 
You also enclosed correspondence between yourself and G24 Ltd.  This shows that you had parked in a disabled bay without displaying a Blue Badge and that your appeal against the Parking Charge Notice had been dismissed by the Independent Appeals Service.

The DVLA replied in largely standard terms at step 1 of its complaints procedure on 6 May.  The Agency suggested that you might wish to contact the International Parking Community of which G24 Ltd is a member.

In July, you asked for your complaint to be escalated.  You emphasised that your concern was not with the initial release of your data but with the subsequent use of it by G24 Ltd which you described as ‘material breaches’ of the code of conduct that rendered its usage of the data as unlawful.  You added that the DVLA remained the data controller and must conduct a proper investigation to be followed by enforcement action that might include suspension or termination of G24 Ltd’s KADOE contract.

In its further reply on 24 July, the DVLA emphasised that it was not the regulator of the parking industry (“The Government’s policy is to operate a system of industry self-regulation") and therefore it was right to suggest that you took up your concerns with the IPC.  In addition, there was no evidence that G24 Ltd had breached any statutory provisions or other legal requirements of the KADOE contract.  Moreover, G24 Ltd had become the data controller from the point that it had received data from the DVLA.

You were also given details of the Information Commissioner’s Office (www.ico.org.uk).

Reiterating that the DVLA had ongoing responsibility for the use of data it had released, you then asked for an ICA review.

While the papers were being prepared, the DVLA wrote once more on 28 August.  This letter provided greater detail on the Agency’s approach.  Unfortunately, it also wrongly suggested that G24 Ltd was a member of a different ATA (the British Parking Association) rather than the International Parking Community.

Further information

Although I know you are very familiar with the legislation, for the sake of completeness I should quote from Regulation 27 of The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2742/regulation/27) as follows:
 
Disclosure of registration and licensing particulars
27.—(1) The Secretary of State may make any particulars contained in the register available for use—
 
...

(e)by any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him.

In June 2022, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published an important document entitled The lawful basis for the processing of vehicle keeper data by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) (https://ico.org.uk/media2/migrated/4020676/dvla-opinion-20220613.pdf).  Again, it may be helpful to quote from the document.  The ICO found as follows:

“Following consideration of the evidence and legal analysis, the Commissioner concluded that the DVLA’s correct lawful basis is public task, not legal obligation. This is because Regulation 27(1)(e) provides the DVLA with a power, rather than a legal duty, to disclose vehicle keeper information to car park management companies in these circumstances ...

“It is important to note that in coming to this conclusion, the Commissioner does not doubt that car park management companies have reasonable cause to request keeper information from the DVLA in these circumstances, and that the DVLA is generally required to provide it.  However, Regulation 27(1)(e) creates a power rather than a duty as there is a discretion for the DVLA to refuse a request for keeper information in exceptional cases.  For example, if the keeper was on a national security protection list.  This applies even if the requestor has demonstrated
reasonable cause.  Public task is the correct legal basis in these circumstances, because Regulation 27(1)(e) creates a task (a power, rather than a legal duty) to be carried out in the public interest (hence the reasonable cause requirement).  Disclosing vehicle keeper data is necessary for this task.”  (Emphasis added.)

I also note this extract:

“Paragraph 11 of Schedule 4 of POFA [Protection of Freedoms Act 2012] contains an enforceable legal right of the car park management company to claim the charges from the vehicle keeper.  It is not for the DVLA to determine the validity of claims against the vehicle keeper.  Car park management companies can use the exception.  It would be for a court or parking tribunal to determine the validity of any claim.  It is the Commissioner’s view is that [sic] the DVLA could refuse an Article 21(1) objection by the vehicle keeper in these circumstances.”  (Emphasis added.)

As noted above in footnote 2, the Government has recently initiated a consultation on its plans for a statutory code of practice for private parking.  The Ministerial foreword to the consultation document includes the following:

“The UK private parking industry plays an important role in supporting our local economies and high streets.  But we continue to hear reports of poor behaviour by parking operators that make it difficult for motorists to comply with the terms and conditions of parking and leave them open to parking charges and escalating costs. These operators tarnish the reputation of those in the industry who strive to provide quality parking facilities and services.  That’s bad for motorists, industry and the economy.  And it’s bad for growth.  There is considerable evidence that the public want transparency, and they want to see parking operators who engage in poor practices held to account. 
 
“Parliament, as long ago as 2019, decided that there should be a government code of practice for private parking, and there is no justification for further delay in complying with Parliament’s direction. 
 
“This government wants to make swift progress to support and protect motorists, without penalising those private operators who run their car parks well.  The parking industry’s two trade associations recently published a single industry code of practice which replaced the two different codes they had.  But more needs to be done to raise standards and to hold parking operators to account. 
 
“This consultation sets out our proposals for achieving this through both a new government code of practice aimed at further driving up standards and a new robust compliance framework for parking operators that will ensure that motorists have trust in the system.  Whilst we consider these proposals the best way to raise standards, we remain open minded about what course of action to take.”

Consideration

Before offering any views, I need to re-emphasise the extent of my jurisdiction:

•   I have no authority whatsoever in regard to G24 Ltd or the International Parking Community.  This means that I can offer no views on whether the use of your data by G24 Ltd further to its release by the DVLA represented, as you allege, a material breach of the industry code of practice such that its use was unlawful. 

•   I am not a lawyer, and as an ICA am neither qualified nor authorised to make legal judgments (for example, on the powers of the DVLA to provide keeper data to parking companies or others, or whether it ensures sufficient safeguards against misuse of such data).  However, it is worth re-emphasising that the DVLA is not the regulator of the parking industry.  Whether there should be tighter (or statutory) regulation is a matter for the political process, and I am sure that you and many others will have responded to the Government’s consultation exercise which was recently underway.

That said, it may be helpful if I offer the following comments:

•   My lay reading of Regulation 27 and the Information Commissioner’s assessment of the legal framework is that parking companies generally have ‘reasonable cause’ to request keepership data and the DVLA is not required to first adjudicate upon the accuracy of the allegations made against a vehicle keeper before releasing the data requested (“It is not for the DVLA to determine the validity of claims against the vehicle keeper”).  I accept that you have not challenged this.

•   So far as the use of data following its release is concerned, I am content that the DVLA has no legal or administrative duty (or, indeed, power) to investigate complaints against private parking companies.  The Agency has therefore correctly referred you to the International Parking Community.

•   It follows that I believe it is also sufficient that the DVLA carries out regular audits of those requesting data and requires parking companies to be a member of an ATA.  The Government’s new consultation exercise endorses this position and as an administrative complaints assessor I have no authority to challenge the Government’s statement – even if I thought that such a challenge was justified.  Should you disagree with that view, I think you might have to take independent legal advice or pursue your case further with the Information Commissioner’s Office as the DVLA has suggested.

•   Again, I must emphasise that that I am not a lawyer or an expert in data protection legislation.  But my lay view is that the DVLA is right to say that G24 Ltd became the data controller of the data it had received from the Agency from the point of receipt.  If you disagree with this analysis, you might again seek legal advice or approach the Information Commissioner.

•   Turning to the handling of your grievance, I am broadly content with the terms and tone of the DVLA’s two letters at steps 1 and 2 of its complaints procedure.  The contents were also in line with longstanding DVLA policy in relation to the release of data from the DVLA registers.  However, the step 2 letter was issued outside the DVLA’s time target, and it is disappointing that this was not acknowledged.  In consequence, no apology was offered.  As I have also said, the Agency’s letter of 28 August also contained a material inaccuracy in suggesting that G24 Ltd was a member of the British Parking Association.

•   I note that your appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice imposed by G24 Ltd was unsuccessful.  It is of course for you to decide if you will now pay the outstanding debt.

Conclusions

As the Government itself has acknowledged, there is widespread concern amongst drivers about the practices of some parking companies and the effectiveness of the current regulatory arrangements.  And given my criticisms in the penultimate bullet point above, I will record your complaint as having been upheld in part.  However, as far as the substance of the matter is concerned, I am afraid I cannot assist you or make any formal recommendations to the DVLA.  Like all citizens you have now had the opportunity of responding in detail to the new proposals put forward by the Government in its consultation exercise that continued until 5 September.  You also remain at liberty to contact the IPC or the Information Commissioner.

This letter brings all stages of the Department for Transport complaints process to a close.  However, if you remain dissatisfied, you also have the right to ask an MP to refer your complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.  (There is a readily downloadable form for this purpose at www.ombudsman.gov.uk - please note there is a time limit for making a complaint to the Ombudsman; further information is available on the PHSO website or call 0345 015 4033.)  The Ombudsman would then consider the extent of any further review she considered necessary.

I will also send a copy of this letter to the DVLA.

Please do accept my good wishes.
 
Yours sincerely 

 
Stephen Shaw
Independent Complaints Assessor

Hi everyone,

I’ve now received an official County Court Claim Form from the Civil National Business Centre (Northampton) regarding the G24 parking charge. issued on 12 September 2025. The particulars state it relates to parking in a disabled bay without displaying a valid badge. The total amount claimed is £264.92 (including fees and legal costs).

The website wouldn't allow me to insert any images or documents not sure why but there isnt a button so I have uploaded them to google and made the link available to everyone.

please see attachment

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1plvqUbJMNqVFCVOOW6qQQeAKM4nzzYYz?usp=sharing

With an issue date of 12th September you have until 4pm on Wednesday 1st October to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Wednesday 15th October to submit your defence.

You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0

Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.

You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 122 lines limit.

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.

5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:

Draft Order:

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.

AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.

AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.

AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case management).

ORDER:

1. The claim is struck out.

2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.