Is this company classed as a small company in the flowchart?

bazster

Munge the link so the software doesn't know it's a link but we do e.g. instead of http://www.acme.com put hxxp://www.acme.com.

One of us will then re-post it fixed up.

NobleSX

Here's the links to the NtK type letter. Hopefully they work.

Front scan of letter:
i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb171/NobleSX/LinkParkingNoticefrontedited_zpsd1f51f96.jpg

Rear scan of letter:
i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb171/NobleSX/LinkParkingNoticerearedited_zps4802082a.jpg

bod1467

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb171/NobleSX/LinkParkingNoticefrontedited_zpsd1f51f96.jpg
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb171/NobleSX/LinkParkingNoticerearedited_zps4802082a.jpg

Clicky links

Can you upload photos of the signage at that location? (IPC members are supposed to follow a contractual charge model).

NobleSX

Thanks for the corrected links.

Is a template letter still appropriate?

bod1467

Best wait for some of the more-clued-up folks to see this ... IPC-member appeals may need to be worded slightly different, as No GPEoL may not be a valid appeal point. (Hence why I asked about the signage).

bazster

"those drivers who break the terms and conditions of parking are liable to pay a charge"

What does the signage say?

ColliesCarer

Also check your NtK - the date of arrival and it's contents should be fully compliant with POFA Schedule 4 para 8 and with the IPC code of practise requirements - think it's page 15 in the doc linked below

http://media.wix.com/ugd/bd9e08_a2dad1a02f8ea46a76b78ba0982af9a3.pdf

There is at least one failure to comply that I noticed from your photo links - there appears to be no information provided to the keeper regarding the appeals process to either Link or to the "independent" IPC/IAS

Failure to provide a compliant NtK gives an extra appeal point as it fails to establish keeper liability.

NobleSX

ColliesCarer wrote: »

Also check your NtK - the date of arrival and it's contents should be fully compliant with POFA Schedule 4 para 8 and with the IPC code of practise requirements - think it's page 15 in the doc linked below

http://media.wix.com/ugd/bd9e08_a2dad1a02f8ea46a76b78ba0982af9a3.pdf

It's been at least 30 days between the NtD and this letter.

ColliesCarer wrote: »

There is at least one failure to comply that I noticed from your photo links - there appears to be no information provided to the keeper regarding the appeals process to either Link or to the "independent" IPC/IAS

Failure to provide a compliant NtK gives an extra appeal point as it fails to establish keeper liability.

We'll keep that one up our sleeves for now?

NobleSX

I'll drive round, get some pictures and upload tomorrow.

HO87

The signs should hold the key.

The wording quoted by bazster above coupled with the nonsense on Link's website suggests that they either do not understand the basis of their own charges or are deliberately trying to obfuscate.

Perhaps this has been done in the hope that motorists follow advice on how to deal with breach of contract charges as opposed, I suspect, to the increasingly normal IPC-member approach of contractual charge.