Free Traffic Legal Advice

You have what is considered to be a "golden ticket" as long as the driver is not identified. Padstow Harbour is land under statutory control. I.e. Harbour Bylaws. Because of this, Alliance Parking  cannot issue a Notice to Keeper (NtK) relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

You, the known keeper are under no legal obligation to identify the unknown (to Alliance) drivers identity and they are not allowed to assume or infer that the known keeper must also be the unknown driver. Do you see their dilemma?

Irrespective of the background story or mitigating circumstances, all you, the known keeper needs to put in an appeal is the following:

---

---

However, you are dealing with a bunch of ex-clamper thugs who are intellectually malnourished and if they don't accept your appeal, you actually have little hope that the IAS will uphold it either as they are incestuously partners with their paymaster operator members.

Not to worry. If this ever made it all the way to a county court claim, they would receive a spanking from a truly independent arbiter, a judge. Alliance Parking are possibly knuckle-dragging enough to carry on with debt collector threats in the vain hope you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will capitulate in fear when idle threats of legal action is threatened. As you're now here seeking advice, I think we can safely assume that you are not gullible and will heed the advice based on many years of experience in dealing with these cowboy scammers.

It's promising that that it's not actually valid

To clarify, b789 didn't say that the charge is not valid - it may be the case that the driver owes Alliance money (although from your account of things, they may well have a defence). What he is saying is that they cannot recover any charge that the driver may owe from the registered keeper.

Just to confirm, how do you know the car park is not "relevant land"? How do I confirm this?

The harbour is subject to byelaws, which include rules on parking vehicles, and as such parking there is subject to 'statutory control', meaning it does not meet the definition of 'relevant land' as defined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (there's a link to the legislation in my signature under this post).

The byelaws are here: https://padstow-harbour.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/byelaws.pdf - they mention the area that they cover. So you need to check that your vehicle was parked within the area that is subject to the byelaws.

Thank you both for the information & clarity, I will submit the appeal based on it not being "relevant land".

b789, you mentioned the NtK also doesn't meet the requriements for PoFA, can you clarify how it doesn't meet it, as a 2nd arrow in my quiver?

I got the attached letter just before the weekend:


It seems either I didn't actually submit the appeal (I'm sure I did, but I can't find any confirmation number/email etc saying I did, so it's possible I never actually pressed submit or something), or they paid no attention to it.

What's my best course of action now? (It's unlikely to actually make a difference, but in case it does, we'll be moving in the next few weeks).

It would be a huge mistake to think that by moving and not providing them with an address for service of legal documents is going to be the end of this. All tat would mean is that you leave yourself wide open for a CCJ by default.

When you move you MUST contact the DPO of Alliance Parking and instruct them to rectify your data with your new address for service and for them to erase your old address. The highlighted words are there for a reason... use them.

You may want to assume that you did appeal to them and they have simply not responded. For what it's worth, you could respond to that letter with a complaint that you submitted an appeal and have not had any response to it. Ask why they have continued with enforcement without responding to the appeal.

Yea, I didn't think that would be a good idea, but for the sake of completeness, I'd add it, just incase. I'll try raising a complaint, asking why they didn't respond to my appeal then, see what they come back with.

For an obvious PoFA failure PCN, it may be worth appealing to the IAS but don't hold your breath for a successful outcome.

If an IAS appeal is unsuccessful, they it has no bearing anything going forward. they'll send you a load of debt collector letters which you can safely ignore or use as kindling. They are powerless.

The may even issue claim in the hope that the initiation of litigation will scare you into paying them. However, they'd never dare let this get in front of a judge in the ultimate dispute resolution service, the small claims track of the county court.

They will either discontinue or try their luck where you could not be held liable as the keeper. They cannot simply assume or infer that you were the driver on the balance of probabilities. There is plenty of persuasive appeal case law to shut that argument down.

If you're interested in one of the cases, VCS v Edward H0KF6C9C (2023), is an interesting one where, on appeal, it was shown that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that the keeper was also the driver. No balance of probability at all.

If you're interested in one of the cases, VCS v Edward H0KF6C9C (2023), is an interesting one where, on appeal, it was shown that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that the keeper was also the driver. No balance of probability at all.

This paragraph is of particular importance here:

In that case, VCS were seeking to make the suggestion that the defendant being the registered keeper of a vehicle is enough to swing the balance of probability in favour of them being the driver. As you will see, the judge disagreed with this suggestion in the absence of positive evidence.

Cheers, I guess I'll try the next level of the appeal then, as it'll simplify it somewhat if they consider it properly.

Show us a draft before sending anything.