The DMCC Act 2024 and Unfair Commercial Practices Provisions

LoneStarState

While doing research I noticed that the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act came into force on New Year's day of this year.

What interested me is that within this legislation there are unfair commercial practices provisions that ultimately replace and update the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.  It seems these new UCP provisions provide enhancements for consumer protection vs the prior CPUTRs.

The consumer protection provisions of the DMCC are expected to come into force this Sunday 6th April according to this press release:
https://competitionandmarkets.blog.gov.uk/2025/03/10/our-new-consumer-enforcement-regime/

It seems that with this legislation and these provisions, the Competition and Markets Authority will have direct enforcement powers on par with the CMA's existing enforcement of competition law.

Draft guidance after a consultation carried out earlier in the year can be viewed here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67585aa88a1ef8f66413b9a0/_Draft_guidance__.pdf

I like the fact the draft guidance retains in the omitting material information section (pgs 35-36) the example of a pay and display car park.

Annex C in the draft guidance explains changes to the CPUTRs as result of the DMCC Act.

I wonder if this gives another avenue to challenge more effectively the predatory, misleading and simply unfair practices against motorists by PPCs as enabled by their ATAs.  Maybe a chance to get the foot in early with the CMA but I will defer to those with more expertise.

Coupon-mad

Needs a close look. Thanks - good spot!

h2g2

Having a quick look over this:

p28 on misleading actions states "failing to comply with a requirement in a code of conduct which a trader purports to be complying with" is always a prohibited misleading action. Hopefully we can use these breaches of CoPs to get at PPCs in breach of them, particularly since the ATAs and DVLA don't seem to care that much about enforcement.

Talking about what information must be made available to customers clearly and accurately: I wonder if this could be argued in the "did not pay within X minutes" cases. If the signs say "pay on arrival" that could reasonably be interpreted as any time before leaving the site, for example, and force them to put on signs "pay within 23.4 seconds of entering" on signs at the entrance if they want to get people on such ludicrous terms.

[Unrelated to parking, as someone who enjoys live music, sports, and theatre I'm fairly sure every ticketing platform I've ever used falls foul of the drip-pricing guidance.]

Having skimmed the whole thing I think the main thing would be that if PPCs want to claim a breach of T&Cs for failure to pay within a time limit that's not explicitly stated and visible before parking we could lean on these guidelines to oppose that. 

Fruitcake

I think claiming fake debt/admin charges that haven't been incurred, especially if these charges aren't stated on signs that form the contract, might be covered by this Act.

LDast

I have not yet seen a single PCN that does not contain a breach of the PPSCoP. Every single NtK that states that the recipient has 28 days from the date of "issue" of the notice is a breach of section 8.1.2(e) which clearly states:

The parking operator must ensure that a notice informs the recipient: that if the recipient appeals within 28 days of receiving the parking charge, the right to pay...

Any breach of the PPSCoP is a breach of the KADOE contract and so qualifies for a DVLA complaint. I have already provided a suitable template and easy instructions on how to make a DVLA complaint:

• Go to: https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/complaints
• Select: “Making a complaint or compliment about the [b]Vehicles[/b] service you have received”
• Enter your personal details, contact details, and vehicle details
• Use the text box to summarise your complaint or insert a covering note

You will then be able to upload a file (up to 19.5 MB) — this can be your full complaint or supporting evidence. That’s it.

The DVLA is required to record, investigate and respond to every complaint about a private parking company. If everyone who encounters a breach took the time to submit a complaint, we might finally see the DVLA take meaningful action—whether that means curtailing or removing KADOE access altogether.

For the text part of the complaint the webform could use the following:

I am submitting a formal complaint against [INSERT PPC NAME], an [INSERT IPC or BPA] AOS member with DVLA KADOE access, for breaching the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) after obtaining my personal data.

While the Operator may have had reasonable cause at the time of their KADOE request, their subsequent misuse of my data—through conduct that contravenes the PPSCoP—renders that use unlawful. The PPSCoP forms an integral part of the DVLA’s governance framework for data access by private parking firms. Continued access is conditional on compliance.

The DVLA, as data controller, is obliged under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 to investigate and take enforcement action when data is misused following release. This complaint is not about whether the data was obtained lawfully at the outset, but whether its subsequent use breached the terms under which it was provided.

I have prepared a supporting statement setting out the nature of the breach and the Operator’s actions, and I request a full investigation into this matter. I have attached the supporting document.

Please acknowledge receipt and confirm the reference number for this complaint.

Then you could upload the following as a PDF file for the formal complaint itself:

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP

Operator name: [INSERT PPC NAME]
Date of PCN issue: [INSERT DATE]
Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]

I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my personal data by [INSERT PPC NAME], who obtained my keeper details from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) contract.

Although the parking company may have had reasonable cause to request my data initially, the way they have used that data afterwards amounts to unlawful processing. This is because they have acted in breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which is a mandatory requirement for access to DVLA keeper data. The PPSCoP forms part of the framework that regulates how parking companies must behave once they have received keeper data from the DVLA.

The KADOE contract makes clear that keeper data may only be used to pursue an unpaid parking charge in line with the Code of Practice. If a parking company fails to comply with the PPSCoP after receiving DVLA data, their use of that data becomes unlawful, as they are no longer using it for a permitted purpose.

In this case, [INSERT PPC NAME] has breached the PPSCoP in the following ways:

[INSERT A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE BREACH(ES), e.g. failure to follow grace periods, misleading notices, refusal to engage with a complaint, pursuing a charge despite having evidence of disability or mitigation, etc.]

These are not minor or technical breaches. They show a clear disregard for the standards required under the current single Code. As a result, the operator is no longer entitled to use the keeper data they obtained from the DVLA, because the purpose for which it was provided (a fair and lawful pursuit of a charge under the Code) no longer applies.

The DVLA remains the Data Controller for the data it releases under KADOE, and is therefore responsible for ensuring that personal data is not misused by third parties. This includes taking action against AOS operators who breach the conditions under which the data was provided. I am therefore asking the DVLA to investigate this breach and to take appropriate action under the terms of the KADOE contract.

This may include:

• Confirming that a breach has occurred
• Taking enforcement action against the operator
• Suspending or terminating their KADOE access if warranted

I have attached relevant supporting material with this statement. Please confirm receipt and provide a reference for this complaint. I am also happy to provide further information if required.

Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]
Date: [INSERT DATE]

LoneStarState

Another guidance document made available 4th April (66 pages vs the 109 page version I linked earlier).

Unfair commercial practices: CMA207 - GOV.UK

Also includes separate documents with unfair commercial practice examples and a technical note.  The technical note was as far as I can tell included in the 109 page document I originally linked and just separated.

Also here is separate brief guidance aimed at traders that is concise:

What businesses need to know about unfair commercial practices - GOV.UK

PPCs could do with a friendly reminder of this section specifically:

What is sometimes banned? 

Aside from the 32 banned practices, there are some practices that are unfair if they are likely to influence consumers to make a different decision.

Misleading practices 

There are 2 main types of misleading practices: 

• things that you do that are misleading (this is called ‘misleading actions’)

• things that you do not tell consumers about or hiding information which consumers need to know (this is called ‘misleading omissions’)

Misleading actions 

These include: 

• providing false information 

• presenting information in a deceiving way  

• presenting products that can be confused with others 

• failing to comply with any code of conduct you are a member of 

Misleading omissions 

These include: 

• not telling consumers something they need to know  

• not giving information to consumers when required to under legislation  

• failing to make clear when you are marketing products 

• important information too late or in a way that means a consumer is unlikely to see it

This can also include how information is presented online, so you must think about your website or online presence, and whether required information is prominent enough.

Castle

I see that the guidance/law also refers to "Code of conduct expectations" and those responsible for creating and enforcing it.

LoneStarState

Castle said:

I see that the guidance/law also refers to "Code of conduct expectations" and those responsible for creating and enforcing it.

Indeed.  I'd argue a secondary appeal service that merrily touts a 95% win rate for traders absolutely encourages unfair commercial practices and misleads consumers.  The £70 thin air supplement allowed in the CoPs with no lawful basis does the same.

Coupon-mad

Older article:

https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/what-do-consumer-businesses-need-to-know-about-new-consumer-protection-legislation-coming-in-2024/

"The DMCC introduces a new direct enforcement regime administered by the CMA for infringements of the core consumer protection legislation such as the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the CPRs and the new offences created under the DMCC. The new powers will allow the CMA to investigate suspected infringements directly and issue enforcement notices and impose fines of up to 10 per cent of an infringer’s global annual turnover."

It certainly seems that all business who deal with consumer goods or services will be affected by the consumer protection aspect, not just those offering digital services (despite the name of the Act ... which is slightly misleading).

The direct enforcement regime sounds
like a brilliant improvement:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-to-boost-consumer-and-business-confidence-as-new-consumer-protection-regime-comes-into-force#:~:text=Under%20the%20new%20consumer%20regime,penalties%20for%20continued%20non%2Dcompliance.

"Action: The first 12 months

The CMA will target behaviour that is particularly harmful to consumers and represents clear infringements of the law, such as:

• aggressive sales practices that prey on consumers in vulnerable positions
• fees that are hidden until late in the buying process
• information being given to consumers that is objectively false
• unfair and unbalanced contract terms
• behaviour where the CMA has already put down a clear marker through its previous enforcement work, such as on drip pricing and fake reviews"

rachity

I don't think that individual consumers can go direct to the CMA, other than to have the complaint recorded (but not actioned). The route seems to be via Citizens Advice/Trading Standards.

I could be wrong.

Supercomplaints looks interesting.

Coupon-mad

rachity said:

I don't think that individual consumers can go direct to the CMA, other than to have the complaint recorded (but not actioned). The route seems to be via Citizens Advice/Trading Standards.

I could be wrong.

Supercomplaints looks interesting.

But the new Scrutiny Board could.

The AA of RAC could.

etc.