DVLA complaints about PPCs abysmally low. Why?

LDast

Very good spot @1505grandad. Once I receive a clarification response to my query with the DVLA, I will look at asking the necessary question with reference to this.

As you are probably well aware, I am on a campaign to bring the issue of fake Penalty Notices to the attention of the relevant authorities. While I suspect this may ultimately require judicial review, the cosy relationship between the DVLA and the private parking industry cannot be ignored.

The DVLA rakes in tens of £millions every year through KADOE requests submitted by members of the BPA and IPC, and those same members benefit from the veneer of authority that DVLA involvement lends to their speculative demands, making their speculative invoices appear far more official than they truly are. It is very much in the DVLA’s interest to keep the ATAs — and by extension their fee-paying members — satisfied, as this entire ecosystem underpins a lucrative income stream from an unregulated source. 

Edited to add:

Upon reviewing the 2014 version of the DVLA's KADOE contract, as far as I can see, that clause permitting the use of vehicle keeper data to recover penalty charge notices related to byelaws on land such as airports and railway stations is absent. The 2014 contract primarily authorises the use of data for recovering unpaid parking charges in accordance with the ATA's Code of Practice and, where applicable, the procedure outlined in PoFA.

This suggests that, prior to the introduction of the 2024 clause, there was no explicit contractual basis for PPCs to obtain keeper data from the DVLA for the purpose of enforcing penalty charges under byelaws. Therefore, any such data disclosures by the DVLA before this addition may not have been contractually sanctioned. and all the implications of what that could lead to.

1505grandad

"Upon reviewing the 2014 version of the DVLA's KADOE contract, as far as I can see, that clause permitting the use of vehicle keeper data to recover penalty charge notices related to byelaws on land such as airports and railway stations is absent. "

Ditto "Version 3.0 February 2019"

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/kadoe_service_contract_informati/response/1683411/attach/4/FOIR8718 annex 1.pdf

If relevant I found the 2024? KADOE contract in a FOI here:-

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

"The recorded information held by the DVLA which falls in scope of your request can be found in the attached document. This shows the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) Contract for UK Car Park Management Ltd (UKCPM) held by the DVLA, which was signed was 9 August 2022."

Hopefully not just applicable only to UKCPM

LoneStarState

LDast said:

So how many complaints about these PCNs—specifically for breaches of the PPSCoP or PoFA, both of which would invalidate the operator’s KADOE contract—were made to the DVLA? According to the FoI response, just 690 complaints were received between 6 March 2023 and 5 March 2025.

Is there a possibility to break down the complaints by trade association?  I have a strange gut feeling that one trade association may be overrepresented when taking into account membership levels and PCNs issued by their members.

LDast

There is, but you'd have to do it manually. You have the list. Here are the links to the two ATAs AOS members:

BPA members: https://www.britishparking.co.uk/bpa-approved-operators

IPC members: https://portal.theipc.info/aos-members

Let us know the results please.

LoneStarState

Sorry I missed your link to the FOI response in the first message.  I will certainly have a go.

emcwill

I’ve just complained to the DVLA (quoting from Single Code of Practice 8.1.1(d)) about Parking Control Management harassing me with their non-POFA compliant nonsense where the land is under statutory control. Received the standard reply. What is current advice to escalate etc?

emcwill

Sorry, struggling to upload 2nd page!

Coupon-mad

Escalate it to Step 2 and say you don't appreciate the very poor 'BAU' template response that a bot could have generated.