Parking charge number

cooldude255220

I've also added a new paragraph 13:

13. Additionally, the PCN is in breach of paragraph 8.1.2 b) of the Code, because the Operator has not ensured that the notice informs the recipient that the parking charge was incurred on private land.

cooldude255220

@Car1980 Regarding the point that the Notice does not include the following wording:

warn the keeper that … the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)… 

If you look at page 61 of the old IAS CoP, they have not included the wording in their example, so that is probably an indication of how they would deal with that point.

With that in mind, I have removed that section from the appeal, because I think the two other points are stronger.

QueryQueen

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82024668#Comment_82024668

The vehicle is registered to the company, not a named individual.

QueryQueen

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82024668#Comment_82024668

The vehicle is a company vehicle.

What would you suggest the best course of action is?

One response suggests ignoring; one suggests contesting; one suggests purchasing late additional parking.

Advice on how best to proceed would be most grateful, please

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82025105#Comment_82025105

Good point.

The company (not done in anyone's name) should appeal as per this advice, as long as the company is going to be comfortable with ignoring threatograms (and potentially defending a claim) in future, if the farce of the IAS does its usual ludicrously non-impartial leap in favour of the parking industry.

If you do want to appeal to the IAS after Napier reject your appeal, I have put together a much more indepth appeal for you to use at that stage here - you would just need to change the parking charge number in the word document to whatever it is, but everything else should be ready. Again, DO NOT IDENTIFY THE DRIVER.