My investigations started eight years ago, when I made my first complaint to the BPA. That was immediately and unconditionally rejected, along with many others over a period of years, until I realised that every complaint would be batted away. Over the years, I estimate that many thousands of similar complaints have disappeared into the long grass. Should you complain, I would wager that your complaint will also be dismissed. You need to understand that the Trade Associations exist to protect their members, and their very existence depends upon income from ever-increasing numbers of parking charges. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas! So no, don't bother to complain to a Trade Association. After all, it is the failure of self-regulation that has inevitably led to the new statutory code that is being drafted. Meanwhile, the DVLA has an ever-increasing revenue stream from selling keeper data and the question of whether their staff earn performance bonuses was never resolved, despite an FOI request. Their position is that it is for the Trade Associations to discipline their members, and that is correct. Sadly, they have no appetite to take action, and the many letters I have written over the years have achieved nothing. So don't waste your time and effort complaining to the DVLA. As far as the local planning authorities are concerned, and I have studied over 400 of them, they exist to scrutinise developments (existing and proposed) to protect the environment. As far as advertisement consent is concerned, they assess projects in terms of amenity and public safety. Most parking signs are approved, content being immaterial, but occasionally signs are rejected because they cause clutter, especially in sensitive sites (e.g. Listed sites). Out of many thousands of developments I have only come across one where a sign was rejected because it obstructed sight lines and might be dangerous. So, again, there is little point writing to planning authorities - they have a presumption to consent. According to para 11 of the Annex to the 2007 Advert Regs the Secretary of State considers that "...it would often be reasonable for local planning authorities to invite a person who appears to be contravening the Regulations to remove the advertisement, or to apply for consent, before they prosecute." However, he then goes on to state that: "In cases of blatant, deliberate or repetitive displays of advertisements, immediate prosecution may be the more appropriate course to secure the early removal of an unlawful advertisement". Unauthorised advertising is a criminal offence, and Councils have a duty imposed under s.17 of the Crime and Disorder Act1998 to do all they reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in their area.

Every parking company (PC) seeking keeper names and addresses must sign a contract with DVLA. This is called the KADOE (Keeper of vehicle At Date Of Event) Contract and Clause B2.1 permits the PC to seek recovery of unpaid Parking Charges in accordance with the Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice (CoP). So 'reasonable cause' for data access is conditional upon CoP observance. There are two CoPs: British Parking Association (BPA) and Independent Parking Community (IPC). Clauses 2.4, 2.6 and 4.3 of the BPA Code and Clauses 2, 2.1, 2.4, 2.42 and 3.1 of the IPC Code require PCs to comply with the Law. That law will include: the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 whereby ANPR cameras (except those attached to buildings or pre-existing mounts such as lamp-posts) require planning permission; and, separately, the Advertisement Regulations 2007 whereby the installation of unauthorised signs is a criminal offence (Level 4), with a fine of up to £2,500 per sign. Almost invariably Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) consider parking signs to belong to Class 2A of Schedule 3 of the Regs, so any sign larger than 0.3sqm in area requires express consent. Some 95% of a sample of 3,000 private land parking sites across England and Wales have been found to have displayed signs larger than this threshold. Almost invariably LPAs state that advert consent cannot be back-dated, so even if advert consent is applied for belatedly (usually after 'outing' by angry Parking Charge victims!) it is only valid from the date of the Decision Notice, prospectively. Next, Clause C1.1 of KADOE also requires that signs must comply with the Law and with the CoP. KADOE also requires its licensees to comply with Industry Best Practice (usually Clause A5 or A6). Even PC / landowner contracts and PC / hospital contracts often require PCs to comply with the Law, KADOE, CoP and Best Practice. (To be continued, as space limited) (Continued, 2) This is what the higher courts have to say regarding access to DVLA data files: 1) In the High Court in Stephen Duff v. Secretary of State for Transport ANORS [2015] EWHC 1605 (Admin) Mr Justice Edis at para [38] of his judgment said: "In any event, a person who wanted disclosure to enforce a genuine liability by improper means would have a cause for wanting it but not a reasonable cause. The function of the policy is to prevent malpractice and thus to ensure that disclosure is made to those whose cause is reasonable in this sense". (Emphasis added). Erection of illegal signage, breach of POFA, breach of KADOE and/or breach of a CoP, for example, would constitute improper means. 2) In ParkingEye v. Somerfield [2011] EWHC 4023 QB. In the High Court. HHJ Hegarty at [263] held that the ParkingEye / landowner contract: "...in effect, required all necessary planning permissions and other consents to be obtained before the installation could proceed". (Emphasis added). 3) In ParkingEye v. Beavis [2015] in the Supreme Court, where at [111] seven Law Lords considered the evidence, the majority concluded: ".....while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA". (Emphasis added). (Continued, 3) Contract Law. It is trite law that a contract is illegal at formation if it cannot be enforced without beaching the Law. A recent study of over 3,000 private land parking sites across England and Wales has shown that at some 95% of sites signage had been installed in breach of the Advertisement Regulations. As a consequence in each case there would have been a breach of KADOE, the CoP, Industry Best Practice, and possibly also the PC / landowner contract. Where PCs are displaying their terms and conditions of parking signs in breach of the Regs (as in the vast majority of cases they are), motorists will be contractually bound to the terms and conditions by their conduct in parking and will breach their 'parking contract' with the PC if an infringement of the terms occurs. However, every such parking contract will automatically have been illegal at its formation because the contracts could not have been formed without the illegal display of the PCs' terms and conditions signs. Every related parking charge demand issued by these PCs falsely purports the recipient's liability to pay the demand, and the question arises as to whether this constitutes fraud by false representation, contrary to s.2 of the Fraud Act 2006.