07-10-2026, 06:24 AM
@TheParkingmeister, I have now looked at the actual DVLA KADOE volumes data, and it explains why PPM may not have appeared on the spreadsheet in the way you expected.
The relevant entries are not listed simply as “Private Parking Management Limited”. They are listed through Unity.
The wording used in the DVLA data is:
“Unity (Services) Limited on behalf of Private Parking Management Limited”
and, for Q3 of 2025/26:
“Unity (Services) Ltd t/a TNC Collections on behalf of Private Parking Management Limited”
So the position now looks to be that PPM were not necessarily requesting the keeper data under their own direct visible name. Instead, Unity/TNC appear to have been the KADOE route or intermediary used to obtain keeper data on PPM’s behalf.
The extracted PPM-related KADOE volumes are:
2021/22: 1,179 requests
2022/23: 1,092 requests
2023/24: 837 requests
2024/25: 931 requests
2025/26 to Q3 only: 1,289 requests
The 2025/26 figure is especially interesting because it splits across two entries:
April to September 2025: 619 requests under “Unity (Services) Limited on behalf of Private Parking Management Limited”
October to December 2025: 670 requests under “Unity (Services) Ltd t/a TNC Collections on behalf of Private Parking Management Limited”
So for 2025/26, before the financial year had even finished, PPM-related KADOE requests through Unity/TNC had already reached 1,289. That is higher than the full-year totals shown for each of 2021/22, 2022/23, 2023/24 and 2024/25.
Across the years shown in that extract, the total number of PPM-related KADOE requests through Unity/TNC is 5,328, with 2025/26 still only shown to Q3.
That changes the earlier assumption. It now seems less likely that the keeper data was obtained by V888/3 postal requests. The DVLA KADOE volumes appear to show an electronic KADOE route being used through Unity/TNC on behalf of PPM.
That makes the late Notice to Keeper issue worse, not better. If PPM had access to keeper data through an electronic KADOE route via Unity/TNC, there is even less excuse for Notices to Keeper being served outside the statutory PoFA period. PoFA does not give an operator extra time because it uses an intermediary. If they want keeper liability, the NtK still has to be given within the relevant statutory period and must still comply with every mandatory requirement of Schedule 4.
So the better formulation is:
PPM may not appear as the direct KADOE customer in the DVLA data, but the DVLA KADOE volumes show Unity/TNC making KADOE requests on behalf of Private Parking Management Limited. The relevant data-access chain therefore appears to be DVLA → Unity/TNC → PPM.
That does not fix PPM’s position. It simply identifies the route by which the data was probably obtained. They still have to justify the reasonable cause for each request, prove landowner authority, prove signage and contractual terms, prove that “stopped in a no waiting zone” was capable of being enforced as a private parking charge, and prove full PoFA compliance if they are trying to hold the keeper liable.
The DVLA KADOE data is published on GOV.UK here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...-data-with
Open the document called “KADOE volumes”. In the latest file, PPM-related entries appear via Unity/TNC, not directly as “Private Parking Management Limited”. Search within the spreadsheet for.
“Unity (Services) Limited on behalf of Private Parking Management Limited”
and
“Unity (Services) Ltd t/a TNC Collections on behalf of Private Parking Management Limited”
The relevant entries are not listed simply as “Private Parking Management Limited”. They are listed through Unity.
The wording used in the DVLA data is:
“Unity (Services) Limited on behalf of Private Parking Management Limited”
and, for Q3 of 2025/26:
“Unity (Services) Ltd t/a TNC Collections on behalf of Private Parking Management Limited”
So the position now looks to be that PPM were not necessarily requesting the keeper data under their own direct visible name. Instead, Unity/TNC appear to have been the KADOE route or intermediary used to obtain keeper data on PPM’s behalf.
The extracted PPM-related KADOE volumes are:
2021/22: 1,179 requests
2022/23: 1,092 requests
2023/24: 837 requests
2024/25: 931 requests
2025/26 to Q3 only: 1,289 requests
The 2025/26 figure is especially interesting because it splits across two entries:
April to September 2025: 619 requests under “Unity (Services) Limited on behalf of Private Parking Management Limited”
October to December 2025: 670 requests under “Unity (Services) Ltd t/a TNC Collections on behalf of Private Parking Management Limited”
So for 2025/26, before the financial year had even finished, PPM-related KADOE requests through Unity/TNC had already reached 1,289. That is higher than the full-year totals shown for each of 2021/22, 2022/23, 2023/24 and 2024/25.
Across the years shown in that extract, the total number of PPM-related KADOE requests through Unity/TNC is 5,328, with 2025/26 still only shown to Q3.
That changes the earlier assumption. It now seems less likely that the keeper data was obtained by V888/3 postal requests. The DVLA KADOE volumes appear to show an electronic KADOE route being used through Unity/TNC on behalf of PPM.
That makes the late Notice to Keeper issue worse, not better. If PPM had access to keeper data through an electronic KADOE route via Unity/TNC, there is even less excuse for Notices to Keeper being served outside the statutory PoFA period. PoFA does not give an operator extra time because it uses an intermediary. If they want keeper liability, the NtK still has to be given within the relevant statutory period and must still comply with every mandatory requirement of Schedule 4.
So the better formulation is:
PPM may not appear as the direct KADOE customer in the DVLA data, but the DVLA KADOE volumes show Unity/TNC making KADOE requests on behalf of Private Parking Management Limited. The relevant data-access chain therefore appears to be DVLA → Unity/TNC → PPM.
That does not fix PPM’s position. It simply identifies the route by which the data was probably obtained. They still have to justify the reasonable cause for each request, prove landowner authority, prove signage and contractual terms, prove that “stopped in a no waiting zone” was capable of being enforced as a private parking charge, and prove full PoFA compliance if they are trying to hold the keeper liable.
The DVLA KADOE data is published on GOV.UK here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...-data-with
Open the document called “KADOE volumes”. In the latest file, PPM-related entries appear via Unity/TNC, not directly as “Private Parking Management Limited”. Search within the spreadsheet for.
“Unity (Services) Limited on behalf of Private Parking Management Limited”
and
“Unity (Services) Ltd t/a TNC Collections on behalf of Private Parking Management Limited”
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
