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

Dee140157

All card payments are subject to a £2.50 fee!

According to gov guidelines

A trader must not charge consumers, in respect of a given means of payment, fees that exceed the costs borne by the trader for the use of that means.

And although already mentioned, I too wondered where the option to appeal was on the PCN. It doesn't appear to be there at all.
Your choices are to either a) pay or b) transfer liability.
Neither off these are something you have to do!

Look forward to seeing the signs.

bazster

HO87 wrote: »

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.

Wow, just had a look, it really is breathtaking drivel.

Coupon-mad

All good points above but beware this is the IAS and this was a Link Parking case with a strong appeal made and it LOST:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5010924

"The Appellant raises a number of well rehearsed arguments, all of which are without merit.
1 - Genuine pre-estimate does not apply. This is a pre agreed term of a contract which applies in the event of an act or omission. The Appellant accepts the omission in this case, namely failing to display a valid permit or ticket.
2 - No contract with the landowner. The Appellant has claimed the Operator is not the landowner or has no contract with the same, but they have provided no evidence in support. The Operator has confirmed they do have a contract and have also failed to provide any evidence in support of their contention. The onus is on the Appellant to prove their claim and on a balance of probability there is no reason to believe one account over the other. Consequently this ground fails.
3 - Contradictory signage. The signage is perfectly clear and understandable I do not feel the need to say anything further on this point.
4 - No keeper liability. The Appellant provides no evidence in support of his contention that the procedures under PoFa were not followed.
5 - No contract between the driver and the Operator. By parking on land managed by the Operator the driver entered into a contract to agree to the terms set out in the signs displayed.


So reading between the lines I suggest any IAS appeal should try to counter those points up front. For example the (anonymous) Assessor says 'The Appellant provides no evidence in support of his contention that the procedures under PoFa were not followed.' so that means when we tell the IAS that the NTK is flawed we must point out blow by blow, like explaining it to a toddler, what's wrong, and attach a scanned copy perhaps highlighted with the errors and annotations numbered to match the appeal!

Can't see how to get around the 'no contract argument' is the IAS are going to say that 'the Operator says they do have a contract so that's that' seeing as a motorist can hardly prove 'no contract' if the PPC won't cough up a copy.

The GPEOL argument needs to be spelt out as well, blow by blow to show that the charge is not a pre-agreed term of a contract - we need to work on this aspect.

Dee140157

Can you clarify which date you received the windscreen ticket on. Was it when you made first post or much earlier. For the NTK to claim keeper liability it must arrive between day 29 & 56, which if the windscreen ticket was on or about 26/6 it did.

So a little confusion there. However you still have the non compliance in failing to offer an appeals process.

NobleSX

Dee140157 wrote: »

For the NTK to claim keeper liability it must arrive between day 29 & 56, which if the windscreen ticket was on or about 26/6 it did.

The windscreen ticket was within the 29-56 day limit of the issuing of the reminder letter.

Coupon-mad

OK so have you, as registered keeper, sent an appeal yet? If not do you want to show it here first? Most important is that the IAS appeal is discussed quickly with us here, once you get your rejection letter, as you'll have less than 21 days to get a decent IAS appeal in with pics of the NTK flaws and the signs. Have we seen the signs?

bazster

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Have we seen the signs?

No we haven't.

NobleSX

I'll be taking pictures of the signs on my way home this evening.

I've not written a response to their letter just yet as I wanted to be sure of what to enclose. I've downloaded the template from the main site ready to edit with the appropriate points sugested on here.

NobleSX

One more thing; is it better to send the template as an email or post is as a letter?

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't use a template for an IAS appeal even to the PPC. The IAS seem not to like what they called 'well rehearsed arguments' as you can see from the above case that was perfectly good but lost. I would write something in your own words as keeper, not saying who was driving of course.

As for email or post, if you can email then do so but only if the letter says email is an option for appeal.