Free Traffic Legal Advice

The driver was taken to court by Napier Parking Limited over 2 PCNs at one of their car parks. The details of the PCNs do not matter as the case was dismissed by the judge. The reason for this was that their Landowner agreement was flawed. They had an initial lease of just over 6 months and a rolling management agreement. However, nothing in the agreement stated that the lease would renew, so Napier had no right to levy parking charges on the land.

The driver now wishes to know:

• Can they claim back expenses for the original court date? This was not done at the time. Will this need to be a new claim against Napier?
• As Napier had no right to levy parking charges on the land, the driver paid twice for the parking in one of the PCNs but has claimed none of that back. The driver actually paid £570 over 2 years for parking sessions on that site. Can they take Napier to court to get all of it back?
• Napier have obtained and processed the driver's personal data in breach of GDPR. They have then used that information to harass the keeper and driver (following appeal) for nearly 3 years. Can anything be done about this?
  
• Several other people have claimed about this car park. Potential class action?

It's nice to hear of a victory, but there are unseen costs such as stress and anxiety and it would be brilliant to see them played at their own game.

Thanks in advance! 

2. Can the driver claim back parking fees paid to Napier?

Is it definitely the case that parking tariffs were collected and then retained by Napier?

I ask as it's sometimes the case in paid car parks for the parking operator to deal with enforcement and issuing PCNs etc, but for the landowner to retain any money paid for 'legitimate' parking.

If you believe that your GDPR was breached, then read on:

Article 5(1)(d) of the UK GDPR requires data controllers to ensure that personal data is accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date. If a data controller, such as a private parking company, unlawfully obtains a vehicle keeper's data from the DVLA and processes it inaccurately—such as issuing an invoice based on incorrect information about a breach of an alleged contract with the landowner (or their agent)—this would constitute a breach of the UK GDPR. Such processing would be both inaccurate and unlawful under Article 5(1)(d).

Precedents for claiming damages for unlawful data processing are found in cases such as Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 333, where the court awarded compensation for distress caused by inaccurate personal data processing under the Data Protection Act 1998. Although this case pre-dates the UK GDPR, its principles remain applicable under the updated UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018. Under Article 82 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018, individuals have the right to compensation for both material and non-material damage resulting from a breach of data protection laws.

The case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 311 confirmed that claimants could recover compensation for distress alone under the Data Protection Act 1998. This principle is now explicitly recognised under the UK GDPR, meaning that individuals can claim compensation even if they have not suffered financial loss, as long as distress is demonstrable.

Furthermore, the case of Tetragon Financial Group Limited v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2020] UKUT 0305 (TCC) underlines the importance of accurate data handling by public bodies. This principle applies to the DVLA, a public body, which has a responsibility to ensure that the data it shares with third parties—such as private parking companies—is used lawfully and accurately. If a private parking company unlawfully obtained and inaccurately processed your data, you may have grounds to seek compensation.

To seek compensation for the unlawful processing of your personal data, you should provide a pre-action notice to the data controller (the private parking company). While the standard pre-action protocol typically allows 14 days' notice, providing 21 days demonstrates goodwill. Your letter should clearly state your intention to claim damages of £300 for distress under Article 82 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018. Mark this letter as a ‘Letter Before County Court Proceedings’.

If the data controller does not comply, you can file your claim as a litigant-in-person under Part 27 proceedings in the County Court, commonly referred to as the Small Claims Court. Each party is generally responsible for their own legal costs, regardless of the outcome. The claim can be submitted online through the Money Claim Online service (moneyclaimonline.gov.uk) for a filing fee of £35. If successful, you may recover your court fees, bringing the total claim to £335.

As the claims are closely connected (e.g., all arising from your interactions with Napier at the same site), a single LoC is preferable. Include a settlement clause offering to resolve all issues with one payment. However, if the claims are significantly different in nature, issuing separate letters may maintain clarity and focus.

The single claim approach has the following benefits:


While combining the claims is efficient, it does come with some risks:


If the claims are closely related (e.g., stemming from the same incident or series of actions), combining is likely the best course. However, if the claims are quite distinct, separate letters might better maintain clarity and focus.