Free Traffic Legal Advice

The registered keeper received a PCN for a duration of stay of 3hr 12min 40sec on 13/06/2023. Yes, about 18 months ago!!! The registered keeper was not driving the car and submitted a response that they were under no compunction to tell Alliance Parking who the driver was. Alliance then acknowledged that this was correct.

No further correspondence was received from Alliance until the registered keeper received a final demand dated 19 March 2025 for £100 with a payment date of 02/04/2025.

As I understand the situation, PCNs can be active for six years which seems excessive, but whatever......

Due to the time lag, the only documentation that exists is a copy of the original PCN. On attempting to access the Alliance website, there is this message "We are currently updating our website; which we hope to go live by Spring 2025." with no ability to access any details on the reference number given on the final demand or against the PCN.

The driver of the car remembers paying for 3hrs at the machine either by phone or cash, not sure which, but thinks cash was used. The parking ticket is no longer available so the excess time is 12mins 40secs. I also believe that the driver had reasonable mitigating circumstances but did not submit anything to Alliance as they have only just issued the final demand to the keeper some 18 months later. Alliance have never acknowledged that a parking ticket was issued.

So, where do we go from here? Pay up, go to court or have Alliance not followed correct procedure that can be suggested by a written letter.

Any guidance would be gratefully received.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Unless someone else can see a PoFA failure, I don't see how the Keeper cannot be liable.

Looks it to me too.

Your summary of where you find yourself now is somewhat accurate but I'm not sure how you've figured out you're £100 worse off.

It would likely not have made any difference if you’d named the driver. You can still defend in court as either driver or keeper. You haven’t specified what mitigating circumstances existed but operators typically don’t care. They’re IPC/IAS so you had at best a 4% chance of success at appeal anyway.

We’re still missing a bunch of facts to determine how much of a case you would have if this went to court (signage primarily) but there are likely to be a few angles you can take to fight this if it goes that far.

Per earlier messages it’s also plausible that it never goes there or if it does the claim is defective and is struck out before a hearing.

In terms of your follow up points:

1. Reviews are irrelevant but by all means add one. Website being useless is irrelevant - You received the NtK and all relevant information - you chose to ignore it, that’s on you.

2. ANPR point and timing is important. Code of practice dictates a minimum consideration and grace period. Will be part of your defence if it goes to court.

3. Your opinion isn’t important regarding the lag. Again you had the NtK and chose to ignore. You have been very unlucky in receiving one of the very few NtKs that can transfer liability.

Sorry for bluntness throughout. The team here will absolutely help you defend if you choose to do so. A parking charge of this nature is clearly unreasonable in your case, mitigation or otherwise.

Up to you if you choose to pay, but personally I wouldn’t.

Thanks again for the responses. Following on from the latest input from G6PRK & b789:-

1. Not sure on the signage - Keeper & Driver live over 150 miles away and any signage today would be 18 months after the event. I have nothing to offer from 2023.

2. The mitigating circumstance is that the driver sprained their ankle by tripping into a rabbit hole or similar when walking along the coast from Harlyn Bay which delayed their departure from the car park by at least 20 mins due to reduced mobility. A picture of the swollen foot was taken several days after the PCN arrived that shows a bruised toenail and imflammation of the ankle joint which lasted for about 20 days.

3. Regarding the comment "Per earlier messages it’s also plausible that it never goes there or if it does the claim is defective and is struck out before a hearing."
Are you indicating that the liklihood of the following comment on their final demand might not be actioned "Please be warned that, if we do not receive payment in full by 02/04/2025 we will have no option but to forward your case to our Litigation Department, which may result in additional charges.

4. My comment about being £100 worse off is based on paying the fine.

5. You make the point that either the driver or the Keeper can defend the action in court - Will this be stated on any future correspondence concerning County Court proceedings?

Finally, the driver is keen to ignore the Demand and would welcome ongoing assistance from your good selves going forward but does not wish any burden to fall on the keeper. Best Regards - Purbeckfossil

5. You make the point that either the driver or the Keeper can defend the action in court - Will this be stated on any future correspondence concerning County Court proceedings?

Finally, the driver is keen to ignore the Demand and would welcome ongoing assistance from your good selves going forward but does not wish any burden to fall on the keeper. Best Regards - Purbeckfossil

I think b789 has covered all your points, perhaps except this one which was based on something I said.

It gets quite messy when we (as we generally need to) talk about the driver and the keeper without being clear on who you/they are - so this is a tricky one to address to an extent.

If court papers are issued, and thus far correspondence has been directed at the keeper, so too would the court papers and thus the keeper would have to respond (and attend a hearing if necessary).

Hypothetically, if this were a situation where you were the driver and not the keeper - and given this is one of the very rare NtKs where the liability actually can be transferred with PoFA, and that you specifically are aiming to avoid any burden on the keeper - it might actually be a rare situation where it is sensible for the keeper to identify the driver if you intend to fight it.


@b789 @DWMB2 would you agree or am I drunk?

Thanks - All the info is factual but Tempus Fugit.
I have enough to make a decision with your helpful comments