Free Traffic Legal Advice

Just received the following reply to my appeal to UKPS by email.

They say they have attached the transfer of liability in the email but there were no attachments.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Response from Seat(Vw)

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

IMO.....

Why this desire to keep touching on peripheral matters, in this case SEAT's misunderstanding of UKPS's status? Frankly OP, this is not central to the issue.

I gave you a simpler suggested response to SEAT some posts ago. Again, I suggest you stick to simplicity and the issue at hand i.e. what docs did they provide to UKPS?

It seems clear from SEAT's response that none of the mandatory docs was provided. Therefore IMO you approach is now:

1. Ascertain from SEAT what docs were provided and when;
2. Assuming that the mandatory docs were not among these, then you appeal to IAS using SEAT's response;
3. When your appeal is allowed THEN you write the sort of letters which have been suggested. But win first. If you opt out of the appeals process then you're prolonging the issue until court finally beckons. Do you really want this?

Some thoughts.

Each turns on its own facts and depends on the quality and grounds of the 'appeal'.

OP, find out from SEAT what was sent.

Don't assume, ask.
Don't lecture, just ask.
Don't harangue, just ask.

Does the email you received with the appeal rejection show or indicate that there were any attachments to it? If it can be used as evidence of the lying behaviour of UKPS, then it should be sent as additional evidence to a Step 2 complaint to the DVLA. Don't send the Step 2 complaint if you can show that the email you received shows or failed to show that there were any attachments, as I would have to amend the wording slightly.

To send the Step 2 complaint, you go through the same steps as for there initial complaint except that the web address is:

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

Subject: Step 2 Escalation – Misuse of Personal Data and Deliberate Misrepresentation by UK Parking Solutions Ltd (UKPS)

Dear DVLA Head of Complaints,

I am writing to escalate my complaint regarding the misuse of my personal data by UK Parking Solutions Ltd (UKPS) to Step 2 of your complaints process.

This matter concerns not just technical breaches, but deliberate misrepresentation by a DVLA-approved KADOE user, acting in direct violation of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and the terms of the KADOE contract.

Background

As clarified in your Step 1 response, my data was not released to UKPS by the DVLA directly, but was passed to them via a Transfer of Liability by the vehicle’s registered keeper, Volkswagen Financial Services UK Ltd.

However, UKPS is a KADOE account holder, and the conditions of use attached to KADOE data access apply regardless of how the data was obtained. The purpose of the KADOE contract is to ensure that AOS members process personal data lawfully, proportionately, and in full compliance with the PPSCoP — including when pursuing charges via hirer liability under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

Substance of the Complaint – Deliberate False Representation

UKPS issued a Notice to Hirer (NtH) which falsely states that it encloses all four documents required under Paragraph 13(2) of PoFA. In reality, none of these documents were enclosed. This was not an accidental omission — the covering page explicitly asserts that the documents are included, which makes this a deliberate misrepresentation.

This was not an isolated incident. UKPS has now repeated the false claim in their written response to my appeal. They stated that the Transfer of Liability was “attached,” when in fact nothing was enclosed. This is consistent with the earlier Notice to Hirer, which similarly claimed that four PoFA-mandated documents were included — when they were not. The repeated nature of these omissions, accompanied by false assertions that the documents were provided, demonstrates deliberate misrepresentation and unlawful data processing, not administrative error. This is a clear abuse of DVLA-sourced personal data, and one that warrants regulatory action.

The effect of this is that UKPS is:

• Asserting that the statutory requirements of PoFA have been met (when they haven’t);
• Knowingly processing personal data on a false legal basis;
• Misleading the recipient about their liability in order to extract payment.

This goes far beyond mere sloppiness. It is a calculated and mendacious act designed to fabricate the appearance of PoFA compliance and shift liability unlawfully.

If the DVLA accepts such conduct at face value, then it is allowing the integrity of the vehicle register to be undermined by rogue operators. The PPSCoP and KADOE contract become meaningless if operators can simply lie about their compliance and continue to access and process personal data without oversight or consequence.

Recommendation

Perhaps it is time the DVLA stops assuming that operators are acting in good faith and starts investigating whether they are, in fact, lying. I strongly suggest that the DVLA conduct a sting operation — for example, by hiring a vehicle and deliberately breaching a term in a car park operated by UKPS. The resulting NtH is likely to contain the same false assertion that the required documents are enclosed, when in reality they will not be. This would serve as hard proof that the breach is systemic and deliberate, not accidental.

Request

I am therefore asking the DVLA to:

• Investigate whether UKPS’s actions amount to a breach of the KADOE contract and PPSCoP;
• Determine whether the deliberate false assertion of PoFA compliance invalidates the legal basis for processing my personal data;
• Consider enforcement action including suspension or termination of KADOE access if breaches are established;
• Acknowledge that “self-certification” by operators is wholly inadequate when clear evidence exists of falsified statutory compliance.

Please confirm receipt of this escalation and provide a Step 2 complaint reference. I am happy to provide copies of the NtH and supporting evidence again if required.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]
[Original DVLA Complaint Date / Reference Number]

OP, with respect we know this.

As far as can be seen, the sum total of VWFS's response was the email which makes NO reference to attached docs, therefore they couldn't have been provided.

But if you ASK them, they'll tell you.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Any appeal to IAS is given the best chance when you have the BEST evidence and not assertions. Don't be put off by other people's experiences: your case, your facts.

This is a matter of LAW and I can't see why we're dodging it.

The best way to prove that you didn't receive these documents is to prove that they weren't in the creditor's possession...to do which you get a statement from VWFS.... by writing and asking them.