DVLA complaints about PPCs abysmally low. Why?

GrannyKate

I will get my complaint off to DVLA - been a bit busy but it is on my list to do.  Horizon put forward some feeble 'human error' excuse for misreading my car number and issuing a notice.  They did cancel but I am still annoyed about it. 

Thorndorise

@LDast
 Thanks for starting this, I can tell you that one of those is mine.
What I can also tell you is that despite me being able to prove that the PPC hadn't followed the letter of the law with respect to the DPA and GDPR - the DVLA fobbed me off.

I also pointed out the failings of the PPC to not adhere to mandated rules in the IPC CoP, they replied saying that this was not a breach of their KADOE contract - I have repeatedly gone back to them to further this and have been fobbed off time and time again. 

To be entirely honest it's disheartening - this post however has invigorated me and I will be looked to dig deeper. Sadly I think I'm not best placed to verbalise the issue (even if I've waded through the CoP and KADOE contracts etc with a fine-toothed comb) and flagged their (DVLA's) own failings and just taking the word of the PPC.

I didn't know I ask to see the PPCs responses. In fact I think that my bugging the DVLA on this particular breach of the CoP is the reason that by the end of last year the number PPCs in the IPC AOS that didn't have complaints policies on their website dropped dramatically, That and the Cut and Pasting I managed to suss out on the IPC's complaints page!

But - if I will read these posts above again and see if I can get further with this - PS I'm sure you have them, but I did get the Memorandum of Understanding through FOI from the DVLA for both ATAs.

pinkelephant12

Thorndorise said:

To be entirely honest it's disheartening - this post however has invigorated me and I will be looked to dig deeper. 

Please don’t be disheartened.  Nearly everyone gets fobbed off by DVLA.  This is why it’s so important that more people complain, as it will be harder for DVLA to ignore a large number of complaints.  

Every person who contacts DVLA to complain or obtain information is furthering the group effort.

I was fobbed off when I gave DVLA the Court Order showing that I had been awarded damages at the County Court when I sued Horizon Parking for multiple breaches of data protection law.  I even dealt with DVLA’s legal department and their barristers, Civitas Law.  Ironically, the head of Civitas Law is Sir Wyn Williams who is the chair of the Post Office Inquiry, so they are used to organisations which refuse to accept accountability. 

The BPA also fobbed me off but agreed to discuss the case with DVLA and take whatever action DVLA recommended.  A FOIA request revealed that DVLA/BPA have fortnightly meetings via MS Teams but these are not minuted, so their contents are secret. 

The only person who was helpful was the Data Protection Officer at the Department for Transport, so it is worth contacting her when you have exhausted all DVLA avenues.  She used to work at DVLA and is based in Swansea, but sees the bigger picture.

The cost to DVLA of fobbing me off, must have amounted to thousands of pounds in terms of their time in dealing with complaints, SAR, FOIAs. etc and their barrister’s fees.   

Blindside6

pinkelephant12 said:

Thorndorise said:

To be entirely honest it's disheartening - this post however has invigorated me and I will be looked to dig deeper. 

Please don’t be disheartened.  Nearly everyone gets fobbed off by DVLA.  This is why it’s so important that more people complain, as it will be harder for DVLA to ignore a large number of complaints.  

Every person who contacts DVLA to complain or obtain information is furthering the group effort.

I was fobbed off when I gave DVLA the Court Order showing that I had been awarded damages at the County Court when I sued Horizon Parking for multiple breaches of data protection law.  I even dealt with DVLA’s legal department and their barristers, Civitas Law.  Ironically, the head of Civitas Law is Sir Wyn Williams who is the chair of the Post Office Inquiry, so they are used to organisations which refuse to accept accountability. 

The BPA also fobbed me off but agreed to discuss the case with DVLA and take whatever action DVLA recommended.  A FOIA request revealed that DVLA/BPA have fortnightly meetings via MS Teams but these are not minuted, so their contents are secret. 

The only person who was helpful was the Data Protection Officer at the Department for Transport, so it is worth contacting her when you have exhausted all DVLA avenues.  She used to work at DVLA and is based in Swansea, but sees the bigger picture.

The cost to DVLA of fobbing me off, must have amounted to thousands of pounds in terms of their time in dealing with complaints, SAR, FOIAs. etc and their barrister’s fees.   

Would you consider sharing a redacted version of the court order with the forum? Or, alternatively, very kindly let us know the court at which you succeeded, the date of the Order and a coded version of the claim number (eg K6*F7**2)? TIA.

pinkelephant12

Blindside6 said:

Would you consider sharing a redacted version of the court order with the forum? Or, alternatively, very kindly let us know the court at which you succeeded, the date of the Order and a coded version of the claim number (eg K6*F7**2)? TIA.

1. Case against the PPC here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6421843/i-sued-a-parking-company-and-won/p1

The Court Order isn't much use because it only states the amount of damages, but DVLA were very much aware of the details  due to the case against them, below.

2. Case against DVLA here at bottom of page 11 and top of page 12: (spoiler alert - I lost this one but it was fun while it lasted)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6365209/ico-response-to-dvla-complaint-on-gdpr-compliance-after-4-years-wait/p11

I should point out that I'm no expert in information rights and have never worked in this field; data protection law is just an interest of mine.  I blame this forum for starting me off on this journey 5 years ago!  

Blindside6

pinkelephant12 said:

Blindside6 said:

Would you consider sharing a redacted version of the court order with the forum? Or, alternatively, very kindly let us know the court at which you succeeded, the date of the Order and a coded version of the claim number (eg K6*F7**2)? TIA.

1. Case against the PPC here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6421843/i-sued-a-parking-company-and-won/p1

The Court Order isn't much use because it only states the amount of damages, but DVLA were very much aware of the details  due to the case against them, below.

2. Case against DVLA here at bottom of page 11 and top of page 12: (spoiler alert - I lost this one but it was fun while it lasted)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6365209/ico-response-to-dvla-complaint-on-gdpr-compliance-after-4-years-wait/p11

I should point out that I'm no expert in information rights and have never worked in this field; data protection law is just an interest of mine.  I blame this forum for starting me off on this journey 5 years ago!  

The added info and the links are, again, very useful. As a new member of the forum there is, obviously, much that I haven't seen. You did brilliantly., of course.

LDast

I submitted a formal complaint to the DVLA about MET Parking issuing NtKs at Southgate Park, Stansted and at KFC and McDonalds at Gatwick Airport where the land is not relevant for the purposes of PoFA as those locations are within the boundary of the airport.

I sent the following as a formal complaint to the DVLA:

Dear Data Sharing Strategy & Compliance Team,

I am submitting this formal complaint regarding MET Parking Services’ systemic breach of the DVLA’s KADOE contract by issuing non-compliant Notices to Keeper (NtKs) that falsely state keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) at multiple locations. This complaint concerns MET’s unlawful processing of DVLA keeper data at, but not limited to, the following sites:

• KFC, Ring Road North, Gatwick Airport, RH6 0LA

• McDonald's, Ring Road North, Gatwick Airport, RH6 0NN

• McDonald's/Starbucks, Southgate Park, Stansted Airport, CM24 1PY

Nature of the Breach

At all three locations, MET Parking Services is falsely claiming in its NtKs that the keeper is liable under PoFA, despite the fact that:

1. All three sites are within the boundaries of Stansted Airport or Gatwick Airport, meaning the land is under statutory control and is therefore not ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of PoFA.

2. PoFA cannot be used to transfer liability to the keeper at these locations, making MET’s NtKs fundamentally unlawful.

Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) explicitly prohibits this practice:

"The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable."

Despite being presented with clear evidence—including official airport boundary maps confirming that these locations fall within airport jurisdiction—MET Parking Services continues to mislead motorists by asserting that PoFA applies. This is demonstrably false:

• An official Stansted Airport boundary map confirms that Southgate Park is within the airport boundary.

• A recent POPLA appeal ruled in favour of a motorist because MET could not refute the fact that Southgate Park is not ‘relevant land.’

• The Gatwick Airport locations are also within the airport boundary, meaning keeper liability under PoFA does not apply there either.

Despite this, MET continues to unlawfully access DVLA keeper data and issue PoFA based NtKs at these sites.

Breach of the KADOE Contract

The DVLA’s KADOE contract explicitly requires private parking operators to:

• Comply with the governing Code of Practice (PPSCoP).

• Use DVLA data responsibly and lawfully.

• Cease improper use of keeper data when a compliance failure is identified.

By issuing unlawful NtKs at Stansted and Gatwick, MET is misusing DVLA keeper data to pressure keepers into paying charges for which they cannot legally be held liable. This represents a clear and ongoing breach of both the KADOE contract and the DVLA’s data protection obligations.

Request for DVLA Action

Given the systemic nature of these breaches, I formally request that the DVLA conduct an urgent investigation into MET Parking Services' KADOE compliance and take appropriate enforcement action, including:

1. Immediate suspension or revocation of MET’s KADOE access if they fail to rectify their practices.

2. A requirement for MET to cease issuing PoFA-based NtKs at Stansted and Gatwick and to review all historical NtKs issued under false PoFA claims.

3. A warning to MET that further breaches may result in permanent loss of DVLA data access.

This is a serious public interest issue, as many motorists have been misled into believing they are legally liable for charges that cannot be enforced under PoFA. The DVLA must take urgent action to prevent further misuse of its data and enforce compliance with its KADOE contract.

Please acknowledge receipt of this complaint and advise on the timeline for your investigation.

I look forward to your response.

I provided copies of the maps that show the locations are within and where they are relevant to the boundaries.

Not surprisingly, I received the following fob-off from the DVLA:




Needless to say, this needed escalating and so I attempted to escalate the matter directly to the CEO of the DVLA. Of course, it is impossible to do so, so I asked my MP to get involved. I wanted the escalated complaint to also go to the Secretary of State for Transport. So I sent the following:

My MP informed me that they have a specific Ministerial correspondence address which they sent my letter to.

I was then forwarded a copy of the response from the DVLA, another fob-off but this time to my MP:




As you can see, even the DVLA do not get what the relevance of statutory control means with regards to airport bylaws. I have now sent the following back to my MP in the hope that something actually gets done about this:




Awaiting a response. However, certainly get your MP involved as they have better access than you or I have with the DVLA. You can even ask them to submit a parliamentary question so that your concerns are on the official parliamentary record.

Blindside6

LDast said:

I submitted a formal complaint to the DVLA about MET Parking issuing NtKs at Southgate Park, Stansted and at KFC and McDonalds at Gatwick Airport where the land is not relevant for the purposes of PoFA as those locations are within the boundary of the airport.

I sent the following as a formal complaint to the DVLA:

Dear Data Sharing Strategy & Compliance Team,

I am submitting this formal complaint regarding MET Parking Services’ systemic breach of the DVLA’s KADOE contract by issuing non-compliant Notices to Keeper (NtKs) that falsely state keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) at multiple locations. This complaint concerns MET’s unlawful processing of DVLA keeper data at, but not limited to, the following sites:

• KFC, Ring Road North, Gatwick Airport, RH6 0LA

• McDonald's, Ring Road North, Gatwick Airport, RH6 0NN

• McDonald's/Starbucks, Southgate Park, Stansted Airport, CM24 1PY

Nature of the Breach

At all three locations, MET Parking Services is falsely claiming in its NtKs that the keeper is liable under PoFA, despite the fact that:

1. All three sites are within the boundaries of Stansted Airport or Gatwick Airport, meaning the land is under statutory control and is therefore not ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of PoFA.

2. PoFA cannot be used to transfer liability to the keeper at these locations, making MET’s NtKs fundamentally unlawful.

Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) explicitly prohibits this practice:

"The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable."

Despite being presented with clear evidence—including official airport boundary maps confirming that these locations fall within airport jurisdiction—MET Parking Services continues to mislead motorists by asserting that PoFA applies. This is demonstrably false:

• An official Stansted Airport boundary map confirms that Southgate Park is within the airport boundary.

• A recent POPLA appeal ruled in favour of a motorist because MET could not refute the fact that Southgate Park is not ‘relevant land.’

• The Gatwick Airport locations are also within the airport boundary, meaning keeper liability under PoFA does not apply there either.

Despite this, MET continues to unlawfully access DVLA keeper data and issue PoFA based NtKs at these sites.

Breach of the KADOE Contract

The DVLA’s KADOE contract explicitly requires private parking operators to:

• Comply with the governing Code of Practice (PPSCoP).

• Use DVLA data responsibly and lawfully.

• Cease improper use of keeper data when a compliance failure is identified.

By issuing unlawful NtKs at Stansted and Gatwick, MET is misusing DVLA keeper data to pressure keepers into paying charges for which they cannot legally be held liable. This represents a clear and ongoing breach of both the KADOE contract and the DVLA’s data protection obligations.

Request for DVLA Action

Given the systemic nature of these breaches, I formally request that the DVLA conduct an urgent investigation into MET Parking Services' KADOE compliance and take appropriate enforcement action, including:

1. Immediate suspension or revocation of MET’s KADOE access if they fail to rectify their practices.

2. A requirement for MET to cease issuing PoFA-based NtKs at Stansted and Gatwick and to review all historical NtKs issued under false PoFA claims.

3. A warning to MET that further breaches may result in permanent loss of DVLA data access.

This is a serious public interest issue, as many motorists have been misled into believing they are legally liable for charges that cannot be enforced under PoFA. The DVLA must take urgent action to prevent further misuse of its data and enforce compliance with its KADOE contract.

Please acknowledge receipt of this complaint and advise on the timeline for your investigation.

I look forward to your response.

I provided copies of the maps that show the locations are within and where they are relevant to the boundaries.

Not surprisingly, I received the following fob-off from the DVLA:




Needless to say, this needed escalating and so I attempted to escalate the matter directly to the CEO of the DVLA. Of course, it is impossible to do so, so I asked my MP to get involved. I wanted the escalated complaint to also go to the Secretary of State for Transport. So I sent the following:

My MP informed me that they have a specific Ministerial correspondence address which they sent my letter to.

I was then forwarded a copy of the response from the DVLA, another fob-off but this time to my MP:




As you can see, even the DVLA do not get what the relevance of statutory control means with regards to airport bylaws. I have now sent the following back to my MP in the hope that something actually gets done about this:




Awaiting a response. However, certainly get your MP involved as they have better access than you or I have with the DVLA. You can even ask them to submit a parliamentary question so that your concerns are on the official parliamentary record.

Your letters are sublimely crafted. Shame about the various replies.

1505grandad

FWIW  -  just checking that the forum is aware that (2024?) KADOE contract version includes some waffle re penalty charge and byelaws, airports etc that did not appear in the previous version (that I was aware of):-

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/current_dvla_kadoe_agreement_for/response/2567601/attach/4/FOIR11172 UK Car Park Management Ltd Redacted.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

Page 19 under "B2. Purpose For Which Data Is Provided"

"f) identify and contact the registered keeper at a specific date of event in order

to seek recovery of penalty charge notices from the keeper, driver or owner of a

vehicle that was parked on land subject to a Byelaw on that specific date, in

accordance with the Byelaw that is in place on that land and in accordance with the

ATA Code of Practice. “Byelaws” are local laws made by a local council under an

enabling power contained in a public general act or a local act requiring something to

be done, or not done, in a specified area or on specified land, which may include but

not be limited to specified land at railway stations, airports, ports or national parks.

They are accompanied by some sanction or penalty for their non-observance. "

Coupon-mad

VERY VERY good spot @1505grandad

  

One would have hoped that by now, the BPA's best friends at the DVLA would have known that the Notices that are issued by private firms due to byelaws breaches for parking on certain private land sites are not (and never could be) 'penalty charge notices'.

Also - potential bombshell? - are you saying there was no such clause enabling keeper data to be obtained for PENALTY NOTICES issued on byelaws land before 2024?

Therefore ... any PNs issued before the change were (perhaps) not within the KADOE at all and DVLA have been issuing keeper data unlawfully until 2024?!

Anyone got the number of Keller Lenkner?!