The end game is that you do not have to pay a penny to anyone for the PCN. You are now caught up in a scam. Do not think for one minute that this unregulated private parking firm of ex-clampers has any customer service ethos. Their only objective is to get som money from you, most likely because you are unaware of your rights and you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree that can be intimidated into paying up out of ignorance and fear.
As Alliance are IPC members, they are not going to give up easily. Any initial appeal will be rejected, simply because there is no money in it for them to accept it. The IAS is owned by the same firm that owns the IPC. There is no "independent" appeal. The IAS operates anonymously whilst claiming, mendaciously, that their adjudicators are legally trained to solicitor or even barrister level. They are not, but you have no way of verifying this.
Once the appeals have been exhausted, they will resort to sending useless debt recovery letters. You can safely ignore all debt collectors. They are powerless to do anything. They are not a party to the contract allegedly breached by the driver. They have zero standing except to intimidate the ignorant and fearful into capitulation. They cannot do anything. Ignore them. Never, ever enter into communication with a powerless debt collector. You can safely shred any correspondence from them and use it as hamster bedding for all anyone cares.
They are most likely to going to go all the way to issue a county court claim for an alleged debt. This is very good news. It is their last attempt at scaring you into paying the charge. They will use a bulk litigator and I can tell you with greater than 99.9 certainly, that the claim will never reach a hearing. There is no case to answer and the claim will be either struck out or discontinued.
Here is why there can be no liability to you as the registered keeper. South Quay car park is on land controlled by the Padstow Harbour Commissioners and therefore falls under statutory harbour control. As such it is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, so keeper liability under PoFA cannot be invoked there.
The Harbour Commissioners themselves record and manage “South Quay Car Park, Padstow” (e.g. ANPR/pay-on-exit changes and site works), confirming it is their site.
PHC’s published schedules explicitly list “SOUTH QUAY CAR PARK” among their charges. The current Harbour Revision Order documentation vests the Commissioners with statutory powers over “parking places” and the “parking of vehicles” within the port—i.e. the area is subject to statutory control, which excludes it from PoFA “relevant land”.
As there is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking firm, the burden of proof that the Keeper was the driver falls on the operator. How do you imagine that could do that? Unless the Keeper identifies the driver, they have no way of proving it. They are not allowed to infer or assume.
Alliance’s NtK doesn’t rely on PoFA, therefore they cannot make the keeper liable; they must prove, on evidence, that the keeper was the driver. A legally embarrsing claim that “in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Keeper was the driver” reverses the burden of proof and is legally incorrect. Courts have repeatedly rejected that approach (e.g.
VCS v Edward, 2023). It’s open to a court to find a keeper was the driver on actual evidence, but not by mere presumption.
This is something we deal with daily and we have a very high success rate for anyone who follows the advice we give. If you need a list of the reasons why the Keeper cannot be liable for the charge:
• PoFA 2012, Sch.4 para 3(1)(c): “‘Relevant land’ means any land … other than … any land on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.”
• PoFA 2012, Sch.4 para 3(3): Parking is “subject to statutory control if any statutory provision imposes a liability (criminal or civil, fee/charge or penalty) in respect of parking on that land…”.
• Padstow Harbour Revision Order 1987, art. 17(m): The Commissioners may make byelaws “for regulating the movement, speed and parking of vehicles within the harbour estate.” (Statutory control over parking.)
• Padstow HRO 1987, preliminaries: “Harbour estate” includes roads, quays and lands vested in or occupied by the Commissioners for the purposes of the Port (defining the area of control).
• PHC Schedule of Rates (2024) – Addendum: Lists “SOUTH QUAY CAR PARK / ROCK QUARRY CAR PARK / COMMISSIONERS QUAY, WADEBRIDGE” with tariffs (i.e., the Commissioners operate/charge for South Quay car park).
• Current HRO process (GOV.UK page): Confirms the MMO draft HRO would continue/modernise statutory powers, including over “parking places, vehicles” within the Port—underscoring the existing statutory regime.
So, for the initial appeal, what I have advised is all you need. It clearly identifies the appellant as keeper only.
• Denies liability or contract formation.
• States non-compliance with PoFA in categorical terms.
• Refuses any inference about the driver’s identity.
• Highlights the absurdity of pursuing a non-driver under false legal assumptions.
Considering that the IAS is a kangaroo court, you can include your evidence that payment for parking was duly authorised by your bank for “Padstow Harbour Commis”; the merchant failed to capture the authorised funds, and the authorisation expired, for what it's worth (IAS approves less than 4% of appeals).
