-
“Alliance Parking PCN – Exceeded time limit – Harlyn Bay, Cornwall
Posted by Purbeckfossil on 26 Mar, 2025 13:48 -
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 ] -
-
That Notice to Keeper (NtK) is compliant with PoFA, therefore the Keeper can be liable if the driver is not identified. Unless someone else can see a PoFA failure, I don't see how the Keeper cannot be liable.
There is no such thing as a "PCN being 'active" for 6 years". A PCN is simply an invoice. There is no time limit whatsoever on an invoice not being valid. They can chase you ad infinitum to try and collect on it. However, they cannot issue a county court claim for debt after 6 years have passed since the alleged contravention date.
It is up to you if you want to fight it. Too late to appeal. If/when they try to make a claim, you can defend based on lots of criteria including the signage, whether the operator had a valid contract flowing from the landowner authorising them to issue PCNs in their own name, breaches of the IPC Code of Practice valid at the time and so on. If they issue a claim, they are likely to use one of several incompetent bulk litigators who will likely make fatal mistakes in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) which are always a good defence point. Most will either discontinue before any hearing or, if there are fatal mistakes in the PoC, will be struck out.
The choice is yours. However, the PCN you received is, as far as I can make out, fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA. -
-
Unless someone else can see a PoFA failure, I don't see how the Keeper cannot be liable.
Looks it to me too. -
-
Thanks for all your input.
So, to summarise
1. I was of the opinion, wrongly it appears, that the keeper is still responsible for the PCN, even after stating that they were not driving the vehicle and decline to name the driver at the time of the alledged offence.
2. Given that the driver had mitigating circumstances, it sounds as though the Keeper would have been better to inform Alliance of the driver so the driver could contest the fine with the mitigating facts?
3. Alliance have followed correct procedure, ---regrettably.
and on a final note:
1. Alliance Parking
- Has received nothing but negative comments on review sites - deservedly in my opinion.
- The website is currently not available and any documentation regarding PCN information or documentation submitted by the Keeper/Driver is unavailable. This severely affects the ability of the Keeper/Driver to review the case after so long a delay between PCN & Final Demand.
2. Be aware that ANPR clocks you the second you arrive and the senond you depart so it is this time log that determines your stay at the car park - A lot of people haven fallen foul of this with no apparent lee-way.
3. IMO, 18 months lag between PCN and Final Demand is untenable and does not allow the Driver to subsequently challenge the PCN.
Looks like I am at least £100 worse off - but I have a story for the boys in the Pub on Saturday - Thanks Again, unless there are nay more comments, I have a few days before the demand is due!
-
-
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. -
-
No one here has suggested you pay the PCN. The odds of this ever reaching a hearing in a court claim are slim. Even if it did, as pointed out above, you still have other reasons to defend it.
Is the signage at the location prominent and does it adequately inform the driver of the charge? Is the signage at the location capable of forming a contract? Does the operator have a valid contract flowing from the landowner permitting them to issue PCNs in their own name? Will the operator actually litigate over this? If they did litigate, are they likely to screw up the claim (highly likely)?
It's up to you if you want give in and accept that you are liable for the charge.. or not. -
-
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 -
-
DO you honestly think that a phot of a swollen ankle taken several days after the alleged contravention would prove anything? I mean, I could overstay at a private car park and say the reason was because of this injury sustained whilst walking back to the vehicle:
Let's be realistic... unless you can evidence that the injury was sustained where you say it was and then it was enough too delay the departure and also evidence that with some kind of record, it isn't going to hold any water.
Whilst I am not saying it is not a true account of what happened, you would have to be able to convince a judge that on the balance of probability, your version of events is the most likely.
If this were to go all the way to a hearing in court, then the charge is initially going to be inflated by the operator by the addition of a fake £60-£70 debt recovery fee. Then, if a claim is made, the amount claimed will be £170 + Claim fee £35 + Fixed solicitor costs £50 + statutory interest a2 8%/annum. So, around £260.
If they discontinue or the claim is struck out, you owe nothing. If it makes it all the way to a hearing and you are unsuccessful the amount awarded is likely to be less than £260 because most judges do not allow the fake £60-£70 claimed or any statutory interest, so around £180-£190 in total. If you are successful and the judge decides that you do not owe a debt, then you pay nothing and if the claimant behaved unreasonably you can claim costs too.
You have to decide whether you are prepared to risk that for what you believe to be an unfair PCN, -
-
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? -
-
I agree. As the NtK is PoFA compliant, it makes no difference whether it is the driver or the keeper (if they are different people) that challenges the PCN.
Liability can be transferred at any point up to the issue of a court claim. -
-
Thanks - All the info is factual but Tempus Fugit.
I have enough to make a decision with your helpful comments -
Agree x 1
View List