A coordinated campaign has been launched against the operators of the Rixton and Warburton Toll Bridge over allegations of unlawful data tracking and aggressive collection tactics.
Independent Lymm South Councillor Graham Gowland is urging affected motorists to flood national watchdogs with formal complaints. The move aims to trigger a structural audit into what he labels a “highly intrusive data harvesting machine.”
Since the bridge’s automated Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system went live, thousands of compliant motorists, auto-pay account holders, and exempt local drivers have reportedly been hit with backdated Unpaid Toll Charge Notices (UTCNs) months after their journeys.
Now, potential severe transparency breaches and unauthorised “data enrichment” methods by bridge operators and their sub-contracted debt recovery agents, Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd (DCBL), have been brought to light.
Under strict Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) regulations, automated ANPR camera operators must display clear, highly visible roadside signage. This signage must inform drivers that they are being recorded, how their data will be used, and how to access a privacy policy. Currently, the operator provides no such signage at the bridge.
“If an operator completely fails to inform the public that their personal data is being captured and processed, that data collection is unlawful under the UK GDPR,” says Cllr Gowland.
“Because the very foundation of this enforcement relies on illegally collected data, I am advising residents that these penalty notices may well be entirely null and void. The operator cannot break data laws to enforce a toll.”
The DCBL Credit Search Allegations
The campaign has also uncovered alarming data practices allegedly used by debt collectors DCBL when handling escalated fines. Residents report that agents claim multiple reminder letters were sent before legal action. However, the Warburton Toll Bridge enforcement system features no reminder protocol—only a single UTCN is generated. Furthermore, commercial operators are limited by the DVLA to using Keeper At Date of Event (KADOE) data. This only provides the vehicle owner’s address at the exact time of the crossing. If a motorist has moved since, the DVLA cannot provide a new address. Instead, evidence suggests that DCBL may be bypassing official transport channels.
The firm is accused of conducting unauthorised soft searches of consumer credit files to track down residents’ new addresses and phone numbers. Agents are then allegedly using this sensitive credit information to cold-call motorists, employing high-pressure tactics and threatening immediate bailiff action to force credit card payments over the phone.
Cllr Gowland is urging every affected driver to submit formal reports to both the ICO and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
“This is no longer just about a broken automated payment system,” Cllr Gowland concludes. “It seems to have become a highly intrusive data harvesting machine designed to extract revenue through fear and deception. An individual appeal to Excel Parking or DCBL seems to be routinely rejected. But if hundreds of us file formal complaints directly with the ICO, we will force a structural audit.”
He notes that because DCBL is an FCA-regulated firm, escalating an unresolved complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service costs the firm over £400 from the minute it is received. “This would hit them where it hurts — their compliance logs and their bottom line.”
Operators Strongly Deny Systemic Failure
Peel Ports was invited to respond to the latest statement but referred back to their previous comments.
Jon Hassett, Deputy Port Director, insisted that bosses are listening to the growing public anger.”We recognise the variety of concerns road users have raised about the operation of the toll enforcement system, including the appeals process, payment methods and customer experience,” Mr Hassett said. He added that they are reviewing the examples provided in conjunction with Excel Parking, who are responsible for the ANPR system and toll charges.
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the bridge operator strongly denied a wider failure of the automated system, stating that the number of appeals represents less than half of one percent (0.43%) of all crossings.” Our current assessment is that, while there have been some genuine customer experience issues, the evidence does not indicate a systemic failure of the scheme,” the spokesperson stated. “The majority of cases reviewed to date have identified individual user errors, which have all been resolved upon investigation.”
The spokesperson added that where errors were made by Excel or Peel Ports, they have “acted appropriately” by upholding appeals and issuing retrospective payments. They also noted that a “phased and proportionate” approach was used during the initial months to limit the number of fines issued while drivers adjusted.
For more details on the bridge and official payment routes, residents can visit the Warburton Toll Bridge website.
