Help with railway Apcoa Fine ZZPS now involved

doubledotcom

Respond to the DVLA with the following:

Subject: Step 2 Complaint – Request for ICA Referral (APCOA / Railway Byelaws Misuse)

Dear [Mrs _____],

Thank you for your Step 2 response dated [insert date], regarding the release of my keeper data to APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd.

Regrettably, your reply once again fails to engage with the substance of my complaint. The issue is not whether APCOA had “reasonable cause” to request data — it is the unlawful use of that data following disclosure. APCOA is not authorised to issue Penalty Notices under Railway Byelaw 14, nor can it prosecute under Byelaw 24(1). The DVLA’s continued release of keeper data in support of these practices is a serious breach of its responsibilities as Data Controller.

If the DVLA were fulfilling its oversight obligations properly, it would have investigated this matter by requesting to see the contract between APCOA and the landowner — the Train Operating Company (TOC). Had this been done, it would have been immediately apparent that APCOA lacks the authority to issue Penalty Notices under railway byelaws. Instead, they are misusing DVLA-supplied keeper data to issue fake penalty notices, falsely implying criminal liability, and then attempting to recover these amounts through civil action. This is a clear abuse of process and a misuse of personal data.

It is a disgrace that this practice is allowed to continue under the DVLA’s watch, and the BPA’s complicity only highlights the systemic failure of regulation and accountability. The DVLA cannot abdicate responsibility simply because an ATA is involved — the legal and ethical duty to ensure lawful use of data remains with the DVLA.

Your response also fails to provide the necessary information about referral to the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA), as required under the Department for Transport’s complaints procedure.

I therefore expect this complaint to be formally referred to the ICA without delay, and request confirmation once this has been actioned.

Yours sincerely, 

[Your Full Name]

Nellymoser

LoneStarState said

What is the actual accreditation process?  Has anyone ever found out?  Presumably would be appropriate for an FOI request?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/independent-parking-committee-ltd-become-the-second-accredited-trade-association-for-the-private-parking-industry--3

 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ata_contracts_with_dvla_for_ipc

The requirement for a second stage appeals service independent of private parking operators forms part of the DVLA requirement for accreditation of trade associations. The DVLA ensures that both appeals services meet this standard. So it says in the MHCLG consultation document.

patient_dream

The DVLA ensures that both appeals services meet this standard. So it says in the MHCLG consultation document.

The DVLA standers are now at the lowsest level now given the sheer amount of parking scams

James_Poisson

The requirement for a second stage appeals service independent of private parking operators forms part of the DVLA requirement for accreditation of trade associations.

How do they reconcile that quote with the fact that Hurley is the head of both the IPC and the IAS and has issued a document pre stating an appeal rejection rate in excess of 95%?

LoneStarState

James_Poisson said:

The requirement for a second stage appeals service independent of private parking operators forms part of the DVLA requirement for accreditation of trade associations.

How do they reconcile that quote with the fact that Hurley is the head of both the IPC and the IAS and has issued a document pre stating an appeal rejection rate in excess of 95%?

It would be interesting to see their response.  Makes me think a gutsy law firm could take on the DVLA with a group claim regarding motorists who have received PCNs from the IPC, gone to the IAS and had a completely generic and vague dismissal. 

On the balance of probabilities, nothing about the operation is independent or impartial, regardless of the number of times it is dishonestly stated in PCNs or by Bryn Holloway in annual reports.

Umkomaas

LoneStarState said:

James_Poisson said:

The requirement for a second stage appeals service independent of private parking operators forms part of the DVLA requirement for accreditation of trade associations.

How do they reconcile that quote with the fact that Hurley is the head of both the IPC and the IAS and has issued a document pre stating an appeal rejection rate in excess of 95%?

It would be interesting to see their response.  Makes me think a gutsy law firm could take on the DVLA with a group claim regarding motorists who have received PCNs from the IPC, gone to the IAS and had a completely generic and vague dismissal. 

On the balance of probabilities, nothing about the operation is independent or impartial, regardless of the number of times it is dishonestly stated in PCNs or by Bryn Holloway in annual reports.

There was some serious rumblings 4 years ago by a firm of solicitors with links to American Attorneys - albeit related to DPA/GDPR breaches. High expectations for a while, but eventually turned out to be a damp squibb. DVLA seem a hard nut to crack. 

Long thread here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6290268/dvla-misuse-of-personal-data-under-gdpr-group-action-no-win-no-fee/p1

LillacIris

doubledotcom said:

Respond to the DVLA with the following:

Subject: Step 2 Complaint – Request for ICA Referral (APCOA / Railway Byelaws Misuse)

Dear [Mrs _____],

Thank you for your Step 2 response dated [insert date], regarding the release of my keeper data to APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd.

Regrettably, your reply once again fails to engage with the substance of my complaint. The issue is not whether APCOA had “reasonable cause” to request data — it is the unlawful use of that data following disclosure. APCOA is not authorised to issue Penalty Notices under Railway Byelaw 14, nor can it prosecute under Byelaw 24(1). The DVLA’s continued release of keeper data in support of these practices is a serious breach of its responsibilities as Data Controller.

If the DVLA were fulfilling its oversight obligations properly, it would have investigated this matter by requesting to see the contract between APCOA and the landowner — the Train Operating Company (TOC). Had this been done, it would have been immediately apparent that APCOA lacks the authority to issue Penalty Notices under railway byelaws. Instead, they are misusing DVLA-supplied keeper data to issue fake penalty notices, falsely implying criminal liability, and then attempting to recover these amounts through civil action. This is a clear abuse of process and a misuse of personal data.

It is a disgrace that this practice is allowed to continue under the DVLA’s watch, and the BPA’s complicity only highlights the systemic failure of regulation and accountability. The DVLA cannot abdicate responsibility simply because an ATA is involved — the legal and ethical duty to ensure lawful use of data remains with the DVLA.

Your response also fails to provide the necessary information about referral to the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA), as required under the Department for Transport’s complaints procedure.

I therefore expect this complaint to be formally referred to the ICA without delay, and request confirmation once this has been actioned.

Yours sincerely, 

[Your Full Name]

Thank you for this. I've sent them my response and will update you once I hear back. I'm starting to think they may just continue brushing it off, which is a shame but we’ll see.

Coupon-mad

Rather than waste time on the DVLA (and I think it is a waste of time, personally) you will achieve more and make a real difference if you  read this message (below) and please prepare to join us to do the Public Consultation once we've discussed it in August.

It's vital the Government hears from people receiving daft ZZPS £170 threatograms and who can honestly say (with evidence) that ZZPS are only there to demand money, with no efforts made to resolve valid disputes:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81552148/#Comment_81552148

Please bookmark the main thread linked in that link.

Come back in August to take part.

We need to drown out the 'alternative facts' from the parking industry and their relatives posing as ordinary motorist consumers.

LoneStarState

Umkomaas said:

There was some serious rumblings 4 years ago by a firm of solicitors with links to American Attorneys - albeit related to DPA/GDPR breaches. High expectations for a while, but eventually turned out to be a damp squibb. DVLA seem a hard nut to crack. 

Long thread here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6290268/dvla-misuse-of-personal-data-under-gdpr-group-action-no-win-no-fee/p1

I remember.  Keller Lenkner initially wanted to go after the DVLA for all PCNs based on the fact the automated nature of the electronic link to request keeper details meant no checks for actual reasonable cause were made.

Presumably after further legal advice they scaled back to more bona fide cases where reasonable cause was never there (PCNs issued to lease holders with overriding primacy etc). Not sure of the outcome.

I guess this approach would be more that the DVLA is knowingly allowing the IPC to be accredited when it does not (remotely) operate a competent independent appeals service and does not meet the requirement of being fair and impartial.  IPC operators knowing the IAS is a joke perpetuates increased ticketing that increases revenue for the DVLA, the IAS/IPC and of course WILL Hurley while acting as a gateway to debt recovery and the additional add-ons that bring.

Anyways, I will cease derailing this thread for the OP.

doubledotcom

The DVLA’s complaint procedure serves one critical function: to establish a documented trail that can later be disclosed via Freedom of Information requests. In the last reporting year, the DVLA received just over 600 complaints concerning data release and KADOE breaches. That figure is disgracefully low given the scale of data sharing (well over 4 million data requests from the unregulated private parking industry alone) and the systemic misuse of keeper information.

Unless this issue is persistently raised, it will never be formally acknowledged that the DVLA is failing in its statutory duties, misapplying GDPR principles, and enabling a commercial ecosystem that profits from unlawful data access. Their refusal to hold data recipients accountable—despite being the data controller—is not just negligent, it’s complicit.

The only way to expose this institutional failure is through volume: repeated, documented complaints that force scrutiny. Silence enables abuse. Pressure compels reform.