Free Traffic Legal Advice

Subject: FORMAL COMPLAINT – Non-compliant Notice to Keeper dated 22 March 2025

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write as the Registered Keeper in relation to a Notice to Keeper (NtK), reference number: [PCN ref number], received on 22 March 2025 concerning an alleged contravention dated 12 March 2025.

This letter constitutes a formal complaint, which you are obliged to treat as an appeal under Section 11.2 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). A full and reasoned response is required, and the issues raised below must be addressed in detail.

1. Inadequate Location Description

The NtK states the location as:

"UXBRIDGE IND EST, Wallingford Rd, Salisbury Rd, Arundel Rd, UXBRIDGE, UB8 2RZ"

This is not a single identifiable site but rather a broad grouping of separate roads which extend well beyond any identifiable 'Ind Est'. Additionally, UB8 2RZ is not a postcode that covers all those roads—on the contrary, it relates to a specific location, whereas the alleged contravention occurred at a different postcode entirely (UB8 2RP). This fails to satisfy PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a), which requires the notice to “specify the land on which the vehicle was parked”. A vague and potentially misleading group reference is not sufficient.

2. No 'Period of Parking' Specified

The NtK merely states a single timestamp. PoFA para 9(2)(a) requires that the NtK “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates”. A single moment in time does not evidence a period of parking. This principle was clearly addressed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where the Judge held that a timestamp alone is insufficient to demonstrate a period of parking. Without a specified duration and certainly not less than the consideration period, the NtK fails to establish that any contravention occurred, and thus keeper liability cannot arise.

3. Allegation is Prohibitive, Not Contractual

The allegation is “Parking in a No Parking Area”. This denotes a clear prohibition, not a contractual term. As per the reasoning in PCM v Bull (2016) [B4GF26K6], prohibitive signage cannot form the basis of a contract, as it offers no consideration or terms capable of acceptance. As no contract could have been formed, there can be no breach of contract and therefore no keeper liability under PoFA.

4. Failure to Identify the Creditor

The NtK uses the phrase “We, the creditor, require payment...” without identifying who “we” refers to. This is in breach of PoFA paragraph 9(2)(h), which requires that the notice must identify the creditor—meaning the specific legal entity to whom any liability would be owed. A generic and ambiguous reference that could be either the landowner, their agent or the operator is insufficient.

5. Postal Compliance and Proof of Service

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) was delivered on 22nd March 2025, Pursuant to PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e), you are required to provide “evidence of the actual date on which the notice entered the postal system”. I request that you provide that evidence, including whether the notice was posted via Royal Mail and on what date. Given the nature of hybrid mail systems, I reserve the right to challenge presumed service unless the necessary evidence is provided.

Breach of PPSCoP and KADOE Contract – DVLA Complaint

The deficiencies set out above confirm that this NtK does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Despite this, the notice contains a keeper liability warning under PoFA. This is a clear breach of the PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d), and thus also a breach of your KADOE contract with the DVLA.

Please note that I will be escalating this matter as a formal complaint to the DVLA, regardless of your decision to cancel or uphold the PCN, due to the misrepresentation of keeper liability and the non-compliance with mandatory requirements.

You are required to respond to this complaint in full. A failure to do so or a generic reply will be treated as further evidence of disregard for the Code of Practice and will be referenced in my DVLA complaint as well as a formal complaint to the BPA.

Yours faithfully,

[Full name]
Registered Keeper

Subject: Follow-Up: Outstanding Formal Complaint – No Response Received

Dear Sir/Madam,

On 22nd March 2025, I submitted a formal complaint relating to the Notice to Keeper issued on 12th March 2025. To date, I have received no response or acknowledgement.

I remind you that Section 11.2 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) requires you to treat complaints relating to a parking charge as appeals, and Section 11.3.1 requires a response.

You are now in breach of both.

I will escalate this breach to both the DVLA and, once I have documented your failure to comply with your internal complaints process, to the BPA. If no full and specific reply is received by [insert date five working days from now], I will consider your complaints procedure exhausted due to your non-compliance, and will inform the BPA accordingly.

I repeat my request for confirmation of the date the NtK entered the postal system (as per Section 8.1.2(e)) and a full reply to all points raised.

Sincerely,

[Your name]
Registered Keeper

I am submitting a formal complaint against Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd, a BPA Approved Operator Scheme member with DVLA KADOE access, for breaching the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) after obtaining my personal data.

While the Operator may have had reasonable cause at the time of their KADOE request, their subsequent misuse of my data—through conduct that contravenes the PPSCoP—renders that use unlawful. The PPSCoP forms an integral part of the DVLA’s governance framework for data access by private parking firms. Continued access is conditional on compliance.

The DVLA, as data controller, is obliged under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 to investigate and take enforcement action when data is misused following release. This complaint is not about whether the data was obtained lawfully at the outset, but whether its subsequent use breached the terms under which it was provided.

I have prepared a supporting statement setting out the nature of the breach and the Operator’s actions, and I request a full investigation into this matter. I have attached the supporting document.

Please acknowledge receipt and confirm the reference number for this complaint.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP

Operator name: Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd
Date of PCN issue: 12 March 2025
Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]

I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my personal data by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd, who obtained my keeper details from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) contract.

Although the parking company may have had reasonable cause to request my data initially, the way they have used that data afterwards amounts to unlawful processing. This is because they have acted in breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which is a mandatory requirement for access to DVLA keeper data. The PPSCoP forms part of the framework that regulates how parking companies must behave once they have received keeper data from the DVLA.

The KADOE contract makes clear that keeper data may only be used to pursue an unpaid parking charge in line with the Code of Practice. If a parking company fails to comply with the PPSCoP after receiving DVLA data, their use of that data becomes unlawful, as they are no longer using it for a permitted purpose.

In this case, Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd has breached the PPSCoP in the following ways:

• They issued a Notice to Keeper (NtK) that fails to specify a “period of parking”, as required under PoFA Schedule 4 para 9(2)(a). Only a single timestamp is given, which cannot evidence a parking period, as confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H].
• The NtK fails to identify the creditor, contrary to PoFA 9(2)(h), using only the phrase “We, the creditor...” with no named party identified.
• The location described in the NtK is vague and inaccurate, listing multiple roads and an incorrect postcode (UB8 2RZ), which does not correspond to the location of the alleged contravention (UB8 2RP). This fails to meet the requirement to “specify the land” under PoFA 9(2)(a).
• The charge relates to a prohibited activity (“Parking in a No Parking Area”), which is incapable of forming a contract. As confirmed in PCM v Bull, prohibitive signage does not offer terms capable of acceptance.
• The operator has failed to respond or even acknowledge a formal complaint submitted on 22 March 2025, in breach of PPSCoP Sections 11.2 and 11.3.1, which require complaints to be treated as appeals and responded to in a timely manner. A reminder notice dated 11 April 2025 was issued instead, showing active continuation of enforcement despite the outstanding complaint.

These are not minor or technical breaches. They show a clear disregard for the standards required under the current single Code. As a result, the operator is no longer entitled to use the keeper data they obtained from the DVLA, because the purpose for which it was provided (a fair and lawful pursuit of a charge under the Code) no longer applies.

The DVLA remains the Data Controller for the data it releases under KADOE, and is therefore responsible for ensuring that personal data is not misused by third parties. This includes taking action against AOS operators who breach the conditions under which the data was provided. I am therefore asking the DVLA to investigate this breach and to take appropriate action under the terms of the KADOE contract.

This may include:

• Confirming that a breach has occurred
• Taking enforcement action against the operator
•Suspending or terminating their KADOE access if warranted

I have attached relevant supporting material with this statement. Please confirm receipt and provide a reference for this complaint. I am also happy to provide further information if required.

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