Free Traffic Legal Advice

No one really cares what the IAS are going to think or decide.. . .

Evening - I've finally received an update from the IAS - and - as you suspected - the appeal outcome is Dismissed and common sense has not prevailed. See below for their full response.

I'd love some guidance on where I go from here - presumably the original oporator will waste no time at all and be in touch swiftly, no doubt trying to obtain hundreds of pounds - or will that happen after the 28 day period? I can only assume I now ignore that and wait for them to take me to some sort of court?

Your help is always very much appreciated. . .




Dear Richard,

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.

Parking Charge Number (PCN): 583280
Vehicle Registration: R###
Date Issued: 30/10/2025

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:
"The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.

The Appellant accepts that he was the keeper of this vehicle but denies that at the time of the incident he was the driver. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that he/she was not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that he was not the driver and therefore the Operator is entitled to assume that as the registered keeper he was also the driver.

Images have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site.

The terms and conditions of parking at this location are such that drivers must make a valid payment for the full duration of their stay. In the photographs provided to me I can see that the Appellant entered the site at 10:33 and exited at 11:32; a total stay of 59 minutes. In the data provided I can see that no payment was made for the Appellant's VRN. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they make a valid payment for their parking session and otherwise conform with the terms and conditions of the Operator's signage displayed at this site. Mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account. Whilst I appreciate that an attempt at payment may have been made by the driver, evidence of a pending payment e.g. on mobile banking, is not sufficient. The Appellant has not provided any other evidence that he/the driver was entitled to believe he had purchased a valid parking session. The Appellant raises as an issue the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and purports that the site is not relevant land within the meaning of Schedule 4 as well as suggesting that the Operator has not complied with the other requirements therein such as the timescale to send the NTK. I must point out that whilst the Act does need to be complied with including the site being within the definition of relevant land, in cases where the Operator wishes to avail themselves of the keeper liability provisions under Schedule 4, they are not obliged to do so where they do not. Instead, the Operator is entitled to rely either on the legal presumption that the keeper of the vehicle was also the driver (which they are entitled to do in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary) or on an acceptance that they were driving at the material time. On the present facts, the compliance or otherwise with the Act, is not a relevant issue. As such, on the basis of the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the Appellant breached the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.
"

As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

You should contact the operator within 28 days to make payment of the charge.

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

Don't worry about the tone. This is a challenge written for the record, not for their approval.
[/quote]

Morning B789 - Unfortunately, due to work commitments I have only just now noticed the appeal response - which only gives me today to reply further. Any further advice will be greatly appreciated -

See their response below - they are it seems assuming I was the driver, and neglecting to accept the basic principal that their terminal offered no such message of failed payment, or that the merchant services have failed to accept the authorised payment presented to them.
They have also stated their records show the payment to have been 'aborted' and then infer that this is the same as failed - two completely different things, at least as far as I'm aware and according to the english dictionary. Link to their 'proof' on this matter: https://ibb.co/0yL8L2d2


The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 18/11/2025 21:12:10.

The operator reported that...
The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 30/10/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 30/10/2025.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...
As detailed on the clear and prominent signage (the contract), drivers agree to pay a Parking Charge of £100 if 'payment for the duration of your vehicle's stay has not been made in full'.

The appellants' vehicle occupied the car park for 58 minutes on 22/10/2025. The attached search of our payment records details that no payment was made; therefore, the Parking Charge was issued correctly.

In response to the appellants' pertinent comments:

* The appellants' multiple references to POFA are of no relevance to this matter, as we are not utilising the Act, nor have we suggested that we are. The use of POFA is not mandatory, as per para 4(6) of the Act:

"Nothing in this paragraph affects any other remedy the creditor may have against the keeper of the vehicle or any other person in respect of any unpaid parking charges (but this is not to be read as permitting double recovery)."

* The appellant is the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. The image of the vehicle entering the car park shows a male driver and a female passenger. The appellant has confirmed that they were present; indeed, they have submitted a screenshot of an attempted payment from their own mobile phone. As such, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is 'more probable than not' (the standard of proof in these matters) that the appellant was indeed the driver.

* It is nonsensical to suggest that we do not have authority from the landowner. No landowner would tolerate the installation of signage and 4 ANPR cameras. Not to mention the fact that we use their power supply. That said, the Adjudicator has sight of our contract with the landowner, which meets the requirements of the applicable Code of Practice, which is not the "PPSCoP" as this is not a new site.

* The time and date of the ANPR is updated in real time via the Network Time Protocol, much like a mobile phone; therefore, it is always 100% accurate. No 'Grace Period' applies, as no payment was made for parking.

* The screenshot of a payment submitted by the appellant is a 'Pending Payment', as the attached 'RK66LDN-Aborted Payment' confirms that this transaction was aborted (i.e. failed), as confirmed by the appellant's own 'PHC Bank Alert' that they have uploaded. The appellant was informed that their transaction had failed via the terminal's LCD screen, with the appellant conceding in their initial appeal to us that the terminal did not issue a receipt.

In light of the above and attached, we trust that this appeal will be dismissed as it has no merit.

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.

Thanks again b789.

I have today received my appeal response letter from Alliance Parking. The response is here:

https://ibb.co/Q7VBPPgR

The reverse is a copy of their Tc's and C's as before.

This is odd for a couple of reasons - given that, they clearly state that they don't accept appeals through their e-mail - though they must have on this occasion.
The letter is dated 03/11 (issued on 30/10 apparently) and was sent in a first class pre-paid envelope. Received today (11/11)

Their claim that the machine told us on screen that the transaction had not been completed is 100% innacurate. It asked if we would like a receipt, we said yes, it did not give us a receipt. There was no mention that this hadn't been completed, and authorised transaction alert on the mobile from my bank would suggest the same.


Presumably now I must submit a further appeal to the IAS?


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 

Quote from: b789 on November 02, 2025, 05:33:33 pm

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.

Interestingly, I submitted the 'Appeal' directly today to info@alliance-parking.co.uk and received an auto response, advising that appeals cannot be made via the mailbox. And that I should raise the appeal directly at www.alliance-parking.co.uk/appeals.

Clearly didn't read things right - the back of their charge letter does state this. So . . .Off I go to 'appeal' again in the correct place - duly entering my reference number and vehicle reg - and I was greeted with this message:

https://ibb.co/NnFcdW4Q

Now - I don't know if the 'appeal' sent to them via e-mail, was strong enough for them to just cancel the Parking charge (I seriously doubt this is the case, but remain hopefull!) or - if there is now some glitch in the system preventing me from appealing correctly - or - a plot of some sort to make it as difficult as possible to actively and fully appeal, per their made up T's & C's. 

I shall report back after follow up if there is any news.

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:

Quote

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.

Come back when they reject that.

Thanks for this B789. I'm not usually the type to poke the bear but I shall indeed forward as is.
Couple of questions before I do so if you don't mind me asking, just so I'm aware -

What's the end game? i.e. where does this lead in next steps.

Is it worth at this stage providing evidence of payment attempted but not claimed?

I work for a financial institution, and I'm pretty well versed in how point of sale transactions are processed. In this instance, I paid using the debit card, that payment was authorised by my bank and moved to 'pending' - removing those funds from being available to me. The receipient (Padstow Council) then needs to claim the funds, using the auth code provided on the transaction.

This hasn't taken place, so the funds were moved from pending, back into the available balance on my account. Indeed, the notification from the bank about this clearly states that "Padstow Harbour Commis didn't take your debit card payment" - the onus being on the recipient to claim the funds once authorised?

Thanks again for your help

Hi, hoping for some help / advice - before I contact (should I even?) Alliance Parking.

We parked in padstow car park for a little under an hour on 22/10. Before exiting, I paid at the machine on my debit card.
£1.50 debited my account.
I requested a receipt from the machine - it gave me nothing, and returned to the opening screen for the next customer.

The chap at the harbour refused to provide any written notice of receipt, and explained he was nothing to do with the parking company, he viewed my banking app to see the debiting amount, but insisted it was nothing to do with him, despite him placing parking boards out from the little shack at the entrance.

I have a screen shot of the debiting amount from my phone.

I had a notification from my banking app on on 29/10 - stating that Padstow Harbour didn't take the debit card payment. I have a screen shot of this.

I was going to attempt to contact Padstow council on Friday, but work prevented me from doing so, to try and pay them their outstanding £1.50 that they didn't take, for whatever reason.

I have today received a letter from Alliance Parking stating that the driver of the vehicle is liable for a parking charge. With time of entry at 10:33 and exit of 11:32 on 22/10. My screen shot shows 11:27 on 22/10 at point of payment. £100 is to be paid by 27/11, or £170 thereafter. If prompt payment is made the sum of £60 is payable before 17/11 in full and final settlement.

Should I contact Alliance and offer the proof that payment was 'made' but not taken?

What's my best course of action - I really don't want to be handing over any money to them, when to my mind, I paid at the time, and the transaction wasn't taken - where I have no interaction in that process.

any advice / steer would be greatly appreciated.