Can my wife deny the driver - motability car

Donegal_Paul

Essentially the car is a moblity car, driver parked car in an area which was new and only had qr signs for payment but no phone that could scan a qr code (old phone) and no actual machines in the car park. Didnt use the blue badge space as had the badge in the car but my wife wasnt in car at the time so not a valid use of the blue badge.

The notice to keeper is below naming her (she doesn't even have a licence) and this is after a windscreen ticket on the day.

Can she appeal on the grounds that yes she is registered keeper but not the driver and refuse to share those details? The sign in their photos is one sign poorly displayed too and the text is quite small too which is annoying.
We'd rather not pay if possible and driver wont be making the same mistake, but if it has to be paid so be it.

Gr1pr

She can certainly appeal it as the non driving keeper

There is no legal requirement to identify the driver to private parking companies

Which location. ? ( and post a redacted picture of the back of the NTK PCN letter too. )

ChirpyChicken

If it isnt a railway site its non POFA so an easy win,

https://payments-appeal.apcoa.co.uk/ - Select Keeper. (appeal in the keeper sname)

This is an appeal by the registered keeper - No driver details will be given. Please do not bother with your known fishing expedition in an attempt to get driver details to try and get around the fact there is no keeper liability (and never can be under POFA).

As there is no keeper liability then liability cannot flow from the driver to the keeper and thus is an auto win @POPLA . Please therefore cancel the notice or issue a POPLA code where you will auto withdraw

If you waste your time asking for driver details this will be ignored and you will still lose at POPLA if you dont cancel the PCN

So let's save my time and yours and cancel this PCN you simply cannot win this (and you know it).

Donegal_Paul

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82082732#Comment_82082732

Forgot about the back but have to admit thought it was just normal rubbish ie how to pay / appeal and not relevant . Here it is if it helps her out all the better.

Donegal_Paul

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82082737#Comment_82082737

Literally send it like that?

Gr1pr

Correct, she appeals like that , UNLESS its a Railway site

Donegal_Paul

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82082981#Comment_82082981

No not a railway site.

Coupon-mad

Then she (not the driver) puts that exact appeal in, and APCOA will cancel.

😁

But this harassment and harvesting of Motability vehicle keepers isn't OK and I think she should also email a complaint to the DPO at APCOA and point out that:

• the NTK is deliberately non-POFA worded, and
• APCOA knows this
• APCOA also knew from the format of the DVLA KADOE data returned, that this is a Motability car
• As such, the data of the disabled keeper is 'special category' data and APCOA knew this before posting the non-POFA PCN.

So, APCOA must explain their UKGDPR Article 6 and their Article 9 justifications. Both. Even if the PCN is cancelled, these two data conditions must have been met prior to any decision to process the DVLA data of a Motability vehicle keeper and they must reply to this complaint, explaining what they are relying on as the double data justification for processing.

There is a second complaint point, in that the PCN is misleading and it wrongly invites the keeper to pay, despite not being POFA-worded. This is an unlawful format: by definition any non-POFA NTK should never be presented to any keeper as a demand or invitation to pay money. The only valid data purpose is to ask who was driving.

The Competition and Markets Authority has reminded all operators last week that a PCN must provide all 'material information' but this notice fails to inform the keeper of the vital information that they are in fact not liable to pay the money.

Only the driver is liable. The PCN should clearly state that fact and confirm that it is 'non-POFA' and what that means: i.e. the only data purpose of the notice is to ask who was driving. Nothing more.

There is a third issue: because the NTK was issued automatically by post after a DVLA interface with no human involvement, this was Automated Decision-Making ('ADM') and unless APCOA can prove significant human involvement in individual case PCN issuance decisions, the DUA Act 2025 is in play. This allows the data subject to 'object to the data processing' and APCOA must note this complaint as just that.

Finish by saying that a complaint will be made to the Information Commissioner and CMA, whatever the response from APCOA, or no response which will be taken as tacit acceptance of all of the above points and admittance that there was no double data justification.

Give them 28 days to respond even if the PCN is cancelled.

********************************************

Explanation for the above complaint (do not tell APCOA this bit):

To lawfully process 'special category data' under regulations like the UK GDPR, a trader must satisfy a dual requirement (the double reason): they must establish a general lawful basis under Article 6 and a specific processing condition under Article 9. [1, 2]

The Dual Requirement Breakdown

• Article 6 Lawful Basis: The trader must first identify a standard legal reason to process the data. Common bases include contractual necessity, legal obligations, or legitimate interests. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Article 9 Condition: Because special category data is highly sensitive, the trader must also meet a specialized exception. Common conditions include explicit consent, employment law requirements, or substantial public interest. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Additional Core RequirementsTo validate this double reason, a trader must also demonstrate two operational principles:

1. Necessity: They must prove the processing is a targeted and proportionate way to achieve the purpose. It cannot be done if the goal can be reached through less intrusive means. []
2. Accountability: The trader must formally document both the Article 6 basis and Article 9 condition to prove compliance to regulatory authorities. [1]

But because the Notice to Keeper (by APCOA's deliberate business choice) is not Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, worded, the keeper is not legally liable. Under private parking law, liability remains strictly with the driver. Only!

Consequently, processing the Motability car keeper’s name and address to issue a charge notice when you know (from the data obtained from the DVLA) that this is a Motability vehicle and they cannot be held liable presents severe compliance hurdles.

To do so, a parking firm would fail to establish the necessary double reason.

The Article 6 Lawful Basis (Fails the "Necessity" Test)

A trader would typically try to claim Article 6(1)(f) Legitimate Interests—specifically, the business pursuit of an unpaid parking debt. However, this fails because: [1, 2]

• The Necessity Test: Processing personal data must be necessary to achieve the purpose. The only purpose might be to ask who was driving but nothing more and it certainly should not be worded to invite the keeper to pay, or mislead them as this one does.
• The Failure: If the trader explicitly knows the keeper has no legal liability under the POFA, processing the keeper's personal data to demand payment is not necessary or legally justifiable.
• The Outcome: The trader cannot use "legitimate interests" to pursue an innocent third party who owes no debt. [1, 2, 3]

2. The Article 9 Condition (Fails the Special Exception)

Data revealing that a vehicle is registered to a Motability keeper directly indicates that an individual has a disability. This constitutes Special Category Health Data. To process it, the trader must find a condition under Article 9: [1, 2]

• No Explicit Consent: The keeper has not given clear, specific consent to process their health-related status for enforcement.
• No Legal Claims Exception: The trader might attempt to use Article 9(2)(f) (Processing is necessary for the establishment, exercise, or defence of legal claims). However, because the notice is explicitly non-POFA compliant, no legal claim exists against the keeper. You cannot claim processing is "necessary for a legal claim" when you already know the keeper is not the legally responsible party. [1, 2, 3]

Summary of the Breach

If a private parking operator processes a known disabled keeper's data despite knowing that keeper is not liable, they commit a dual breach of data protection law: [1]

1. They lack a valid Article 6 lawful basis because chasing a non-liable party is not legally necessary.
2. They lack an Article 9 condition because no legitimate legal claim can be established against that specific individual. [1, 2]

I don't think the DVLA should be issuing Motability data for any Airport sites for ANY parking firm, for the above reason.

I don't think the DVLA should be issuing Motability data to APCOA at all, for the above reason. With one exception:

Railway sites would be different because APCOA now issue POFA-worded PCNs for those (and only those) which is a bizarre twist. Therefore there is an Article 9 data reason in those cases.

IMHO, to release any Motability keeper data (or that of a known disabled or mentally vulnerable keeper, marked by a flag on the account, if the DVLA has such knowledge) the DVLA should first be satisfied that the site and the notice are both covered by Sch4 of the POFA.

i.e. that the double data justification exists.

I think the ICO should require the DVLA to have a 'double lock' to protect the data of Motability keepers (known to always be 'special category data') and tell an enquiring PPC that the data will not be released unless they confirm that the site is 'relevant land' and their NTK will be served by day 14 (if it is the first PCN) or between day 29 and day 56 (if it follows a windscreen PCN) and vouch under a statement of truth, that the notice will be 'POFA compliant' in wording.

If not then the data should not be released.

It is sensitive information concerning a known disabled person, thus it requires higher protection standards. While the DUAA relaxes general restrictions on using Automated Decision-Making ('ADM') for significant decisions like demanding money from a data subject, these relaxations do not apply if special category data is involved.

Strict safeguards and prohibitions must be in place for sensitive data and known disabled motorists should be protected from unfair demands. ADM should not be used and camera surveillance should not be used for PCN issuance by post, if the area (such as a run of disabled bays) can be patrolled instead.

And I think the CMA should be looking into this and stating to the wider industry that 'material information' required on a NTK and all subsequent letters and communications (including all texts, emails, messages and phone calls) MUST include a statement about whether the POFA is being relied upon, or not, and what that means for the recipient.

IMHO, the same rationale applies to any PCNs issued to vehicles which are displaying a Blue Badge, at any site.

The BPA Code used to ban PCNs from being issued at all to vehicles displaying blue badges (it was in their CoP until a decade ago) but IMHO that's a step too far. However, DVLA data should not be sought as a first resort and 'bay monitoring' cameras must not be used to auto-generate a PCN by post.

Disabled bay areas should be required to always use manned patrols (either by the PPC staff or by the landowner or retailer or hospital staff, etc) for fairness and to visually assess disability need with 'eyes on' the motorist and passengers.

Obtaining DVLA data of disabled persons should be a last resort.

An on a general note: APCOA must also not impose extra steps on blue badge holders that involve an obligation to scan or register their (council on street scheme) Blue Badge. This - bay monitoring, they call it - is a new and highly data-intrusive idea that singles out disabled people and needs stopping by the ICO because it sets known disabled persons up with an extra obligation than is found in-street, putting them more at risk of a PCN than they would be if the site was patrolled, and it is only imposed because APCOA want to run all sites by ANPR surveillance.

That's not allowed. I think even the KADOE rules say that data for first-notice postal PCNs should only be requested where manual patrols are not possible.

This doesn't leave the parking industry with no remedy to check accessible bays fairly because they, or their agent or the landowner/onsite staff can affix a PCN to the windscreen to fairly alert the driver, without obtaining data. After a month, if there has been no appeal from the driver, they can then request the keeper data as a last resort, not first.

ChirpyChicken

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82082967#Comment_82082967

Yes of course

It works 100% why beat around the bush