No one really cares what the IAS are going to think or decide.. . .
Before any alleged “breach of contract” can be entertained, the assessor must first determine whether the appellant can be liable at all:
Padstow Harbour car park is on harbour-byelaw land (Padstow Port & Harbour Byelaws; Padstow Harbour Revision Order 1987). Land under statutory control is not “relevant land” for Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Sch 4, para 3(1)(c) and 3(3)). The operator expressly states it is not relying on PoFA. There is therefore no statutory route to hold the registered keeper liable. Unless the driver is identified with admissible evidence, the appeal must be allowed at this threshold stage without considering any alleged contractual terms.
Operator’s false assertion about driver identity:
The operator’s statement that “the appellant was the driver” is untrue. The appellant has never identified as the driver. ANPR stills and speculation about who was at the wheel do not constitute driver identification. There is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver; courts have rejected attempts to infer identity or to misuse Elliott v Loake / CPS v AJH Films. Persuasive appellate authority (e.g. VCS v Edward (2023)) confirms that, absent a clear admission or cogent identification evidence, a claimant cannot meet its burden merely from keeper status or photos of occupants.
Assessor’s duty and transparency:
The IAS represents that appeals are decided by legally qualified assessors. If the assessor is a solicitor (or higher), they will know that, on non-relevant land with PoFA not invoked, there is no keeper liability; only an identified driver can be pursued. If the appeal is to be rejected notwithstanding these fundamentals, the decision should state plainly (a) the admissible evidence said to identify the driver, and (b) the legal basis for any keeper liability on non-relevant land when PoFA is not relied upon.
Outcome:
Non-relevant land + no PoFA + no driver identification = no claim against the keeper. Cancel the PCN.
Don't worry about the tone. This is a challenge written for the record, not for their approval.
I think my main question is, as this progresses - am I likely to expect debt collectors to be knocking on my door or trying to 'remove' things? Don't fancy having a barny with folks in the street if they start trying to stick clamps and such on vehicles.
A County Court Judgment (CCJ) does not just happen—it follows a clear legal process. If someone gets a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private parking company, here's what happens step by step:1. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued• The parking company sends a letter (Notice to Keeper) demanding money.
• This is not a fine—it’s an invoice for an alleged breach of contract.
2. Opportunity to Appeal• The recipient can appeal to the parking company.
•If rejected, they may be able to appeal to POPLA (if BPA member) or IAS (if IPC member).
• If an appeal is lost or ignored, the parking company demands payment.
3. Debt Collection Letters• The parking company might send scary letters or pass the case to a debt collector.
• Debt collectors have no power—they just send letters and can be ignored.
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
4. Letter Before Claim (LBC)• If ignored for long enough, the parking company (or their solicitor) sends a Letter Before Claim (LBC).
• This is a warning that they may start a court case.
• The recipient has 30 days to reply before a claim is filed.
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
5. County Court Claim Issued• If ignored or unpaid, the parking company may file a claim with the County Court.
• The court sends a Claim Form with details of the claim and how to respond.
• The recipient has 14 days to respond (or 28 days if they acknowledge it).
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
6. Court Process• If the recipient defends the claim, a judge decides if they owe money.
• If the recipient ignores the claim, the parking company wins by default.
• No CCJ happens yet unless the recipient loses and ignores the court.
7. Judgment & Payment• If the court rules that money is owed, the recipient has 30 days to pay in full.
• If they pay within 30 days, no CCJ goes on their credit file.
• If they don’t pay within 30 days, the CCJ stays on their credit file for 6 years.
Conclusion
CCJs do not appear out of thin air. They only happen if:• A parking company takes the case to court.
• The person loses or ignores the case.
• The person fails to pay within 30 days.
If you engage with the process (appeal, defend, or pay on time), no CCJ happens.
Preliminary issue – non-relevant land / no keeper liability:
This PCN concerns Padstow Harbour car park, which forms part of the Padstow Harbour “harbour estate” (defined in the byelaws as “the docks, piers, wharves, quays… roads… and the lands, buildings and property… vested in or occupied by the Commissioners for the purposes of the Port”). Parking on the harbour estate is controlled by local byelaws. In particular, Padstow Port & Harbour Byelaws 1991 byelaw 43 provides:“43. (1) No person shall park or leave a vehicle in any place where it is likely to obstruct or interfere with the use of the harbour estate, or in any part of the harbour estate where the parking of vehicles is prohibited and notice of such prohibition has been erected by the harbour master.
(2) Any notice erected under paragraph (1) of this byelaw shall be conspicuously posted in or in proximity to the place to which it relates.
(3) If the harbour master so directs, the owner of a vehicle parked or left in contravention of paragraph (1) of this byelaw shall remove the same… and if the owner fails to comply… the harbour master may remove the vehicle.”
The Commissioners’ statutory power to make byelaws “for regulating the movement, speed and parking of vehicles within the harbour estate” derives from the Padstow Harbour Revision Order 1987, article 18(m).
Under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, “relevant land” expressly excludes “any land… on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”: see para 3(1)(c), with para 3(3) defining “statutory control” to include liabilities imposed by statutory provisions (criminal or civil) in respect of parking. Padstow Harbour car park is therefore not “relevant land” and there is no statutory route to hold the registered keeper liable. Unless the operator produces admissible evidence identifying the driver, this appeal must be allowed at the threshold.
However, I am led to believe that the IAS is not truly independent and that the adjudicators are not really solicitors or barristers. If they were, they would not be so hesitant as to keep their identity secret. So, if the "Preliminary Issue" is not enough to get this PCN cancelled, I continue with the following:
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to provide the following:1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.
2. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period as defined by the PPSCoP.
4. Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable.
5. Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)
6. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.
If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.
In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles.
No, simply put.
I think my main question is, as this progresses - am I likely to expect debt collectors to be knocking on my door or trying to 'remove' things? Don't fancy having a barny with folks in the street if they start trying to stick clamps and such on vehicles.
Many thanks again in advance of any guidance
You’ve done everything you can. Wait and see what you receive next.
As already pointed out, you cannot be liable as the keeper as long as the driver is not identified. That’s the law.
The end game is that you do not have to pay a penny to anyone for the PCN. . . . . .
Thanks again for this b789. I shall duly respond today and no doubt come back when/if they reject appeal accordingly.
The end game is that you do not have to pay a penny to anyone for the PCN. . . . . .
DO NOT, under any circumstances, identify the driver. They only know that you are the registered keeper. They have no idea who the driver is unless you blab it to them inadvertently or otherwise. ONLY the driver can be liable as the location is not relevant land under PoFA 2012 and therefore you cannot be liable as the Keeper. Also, their Notice to Keeper (NtK) doesn't seek to even try and rely on PoFA to hold you liable as the Keeper.
There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:QuoteI am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Alliance Parking has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Alliance have no hope should you be so stupid as to try and litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Come back when they reject that.
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Alliance Parking has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Alliance have no hope should you be so stupid as to try and litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.