Help with railway Apcoa Fine ZZPS now involved

Nellymoser

Like @doubledotcom I believe this was the correct action to take.

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

LillacIris

After waiting for nearly 2 months I have recieved an update from ICA. It is very long so apologies for that. We all probably knew the outcome of this complaint and that nothing would be done but atleast it all has been documented and added to the many complaints. Not sure what else I can do but hopegully a postivie change will come soon. Thank you all for taking the time to help me as well as others in these situations.

Note: The response is very long, so I will divide it into multiple comments. 1/3

Dear _______

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

I write further to my letter of 22 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

(APCOA Parking (UK) 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 British Parking Association). In addition, any concerns

you may have about the DVLA’s handling would be a matter for the Information

Commissioner’s Office.

LillacIris

2/3

Jurisdiction

Before setting out the facts of this case and my views, I should first explain the nature of the

ICA role. 1 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

 

1 As I pointed out in my acknowledgement letter, more information about the ICA terms of reference is readily

available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dft-independent-complaint-assessors-terms-

of-reference/dft-independent-complaint-assessors-terms-of-reference. Previous annual reports are also

available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/independent-complaints-assessors-for-the-

department-for-transport.

 

“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. At the moment there is a consultation on the

Private Parking Code of Practice that you may be interested in.” 2

 

2 The parking industry has introduced its own Code of Practice, the latest version of which is at:

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/Sector Code Templates/sectorsingleCodeofPra

cticeVersion1.1130225.pdf. In July 2025, the present Government sought comments on a new code of

practice (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-of-practice). The consultation

includes the following description of current arrangements:

“To send parking charge notices by post or enforce unpaid parking charge notices issued at the time of

contravention, parking operators must contact the vehicle’s registered keeper. The law permits this

information to be provided by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), subject to appropriate

safeguards.

“To access that data, operators must demonstrate that they have a reasonable cause to receive it as well as

be a member of a DVLA-accredited trade association. To become an accredited trade association, the DVLA

requires a trade body to have a code of practice, provide guidance on how it expects its members to operate,

as well as setting standards for operators, covering, for example, signage, dealing with complaints, managing

appeals against parking charges, setting caps for parking charges and debt recovery fees, and setting

 

Review

The DVLA records show that on  __ December 2024, Apcoa Parking (UK) Ltd made a

request for data in relation to an event on __ December involving a vehicle with the

registration ______. The request was made under the terms of Apcoa’s KADOE

(Keeper at date of event) contract with the DVLA.

At the end of April 2025, you made a complaint to the DVLA in the following terms:

 

Your supporting statement included the following:

 

expectations for early payment discounts. They are also required to have a mechanism to enforce their code

of practice, and they must provide an independent, second stage appeals service.”

The Government proposes a new compliance framework:

“Only parking operators certified under the Scheme will be able to have access to the DVLA data, which is

needed to identify the vehicle keeper and issue or pursue parking charges. In practice, this means that only

parking operators who are compliant with the new Code and have a valid certificate of conformity from the

UKAS accredited Conformity Assessment Body will be able to enforce parking charges. In circumstances

where a parking operator is found in breach of the Code after it has been certified, they will risk being

suspended until the problem is rectified or their certification withdrawn. This would preclude operators from

requesting the registered vehicle keeper data from the DVLA.”

The consultation closed on 5 September.

 

You also enclosed correspondence between yourself and Apcoa.

The DVLA replied in largely standard terms at step 1 of its complaints procedure on __ May.

The Agency referred to Regulation 27 of The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing)

Regulations 2002 and suggested that you might wish to contact the British Parking

Association (BPA) of which Apcoa is a member.

In July, you asked for your complaint to be escalated. You accused the DVLA of side-

stepping its responsibilities as a data controller. You emphasised that your concern was not

with the initial release of your data under Regulation 27 but with the subsequent use of it by

Apcoa which you described as ‘false representation’ that could amount to ‘fraud’.

You said that, as data controller, the DVLA had to take responsibility for what its data

recipients were doing with keeper data: “Passing the buck to a private trade body like the

BPA is not acceptable and does not discharge the DVLA’s legal duties”. You called on the

Agency to conduct a proper investigation to be followed by enforcement action that might

include suspension or termination of Apcoa’s KADOE contract.

LillacIris

3/3

In its further reply on __ 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

BPA. In addition, there was no evidence that Apcoa had breached any statutory provisions

or other legal requirements of the KADOE contract.

In addition to the BPA, you were given details of the Information Commissioner’s Office

(www.ico.org.uk).

You then asked for an ICA review.

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 Apcoa Parking (UK) Ltd or the British

Parking Association.

 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, or whether Apcoa misrepresented its powers in respect of the

Railway Byelaws). This means that I can offer no views on whether the use of your

data by Apcoa Parking (UK) Ltd further to its release by the DVLA represented, as

you allege, “unlawful misuse”.

It is also 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”).

 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 British Parking Association.

 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 Apcoa Parking (UK) Ltd became the data

controller of the data it had received from the DVLA 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 Regulation 27

and related matters. At step 2, there was also an attempt to engage with your

specific concerns in relation to the Railway Byelaws. 3

Conclusions

I do of course understand why you have pursued this matter so diligently. 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.

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. But 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 BPA or the Information Commissioner.

This letter now 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.

 

3 I note that Byelaw 14(3) reads: “no person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall

park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an operator or an authorised person

without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an

operator or an authorised person at that place.”

 

 

Please do accept my good wishes.

Yours sincerely

Independent Complaints Assessor

h2g2

So the DVLA's stance, if I may summarise, appears to be that the ATAs have pinky promised to enforce the code of conduct and it's not their problem if the ATA doesn't; and the ATA takes the stance that they must be enforcing the code of conduct or else the DVLA wouldn't allow them access.

Have you gone through the BPA in this case? If you had hard evidence that they've failed to uphold the code of conduct it may well help the case if you wish to escalate again.

Maybe this is something worth raising with trading standards or whoever the body enforcing that codes of conduct are actually followed is.

Is it possible to try to get your MP involved to hold the various bodies to task.

LillacIris

h2g2 said:

So the DVLA's stance, if I may summarise, appears to be that the ATAs have pinky promised to enforce the code of conduct and it's not their problem if the ATA doesn't; and the ATA takes the stance that they must be enforcing the code of conduct or else the DVLA wouldn't allow them access.

Have you gone through the BPA in this case? If you had hard evidence that they've failed to uphold the code of conduct it may well help the case if you wish to escalate again.

Maybe this is something worth raising with trading standards or whoever the body enforcing that codes of conduct are actually followed is.

Is it possible to try to get your MP involved to hold the various bodies to task.

I believe I have not gone through BPA.

I have an email response from APCOA confirming that the ‘Penalty Notice’ is issued as a civil matter, yet they present it in a way that makes it appear to be a statutory penalty under the Railway Byelaws.

I could try contacting my MP, though I’m not sure how much difference that would make.

If anyone could help me draft a complaint to the BPA or my MP, I’d be happy to give it a try and see where it leads. Are there any precautions I should be aware of if I decide to continue pursuing this?

Coupon-mad

LillacIris said:

h2g2 said:

So the DVLA's stance, if I may summarise, appears to be that the ATAs have pinky promised to enforce the code of conduct and it's not their problem if the ATA doesn't; and the ATA takes the stance that they must be enforcing the code of conduct or else the DVLA wouldn't allow them access.

Have you gone through the BPA in this case? If you had hard evidence that they've failed to uphold the code of conduct it may well help the case if you wish to escalate again.

Maybe this is something worth raising with trading standards or whoever the body enforcing that codes of conduct are actually followed is.

Is it possible to try to get your MP involved to hold the various bodies to task.

I believe I have not gone through BPA.

I have an email response from APCOA confirming that the ‘Penalty Notice’ is issued as a civil matter, yet they present it in a way that makes it appear to be a statutory penalty under the Railway Byelaws.

I could try contacting my MP, though I’m not sure how much difference that would make.

If anyone could help me draft a complaint to the BPA or my MP, I’d be happy to give it a try and see where it leads. Are there any precautions I should be aware of if I decide to continue pursuing this?

"The consultation closed on 5 September."

No, the deadline was extended and YOU STILL HAVE TIME. THIS IS THE URGENT FIGHTBACK:

Please do the government's Public Consultation.

We need every poster to complete this vital survey before the deadline next week:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-now-extended-closes-friday-26th-september/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. I've written some guidance to help focus on the issues.

I've covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

CLOSES ON FRIDAY 26th SEPTEMBER.