I don't think I can fill out the form yet as I've not received the court papers but it looks like that is where we are headed. The last communication was received from Napier this weekend after going back and forth in email exchanges. I claim that the parking bay was not clearly marked as disabled (in comparison to the adjacent bay) so contested the £95 fine (£50 if paid in 14 days). I appealed to Napier and then to The IAS. Both failed on ground of contract blah blah blah. The IAS emailed me the outcome. Napier claim to have posted a letter on 7th May which I never received. I started receiving debt chase demands from DRP for over £150. I complained to them and Napier saying I received no notification (all previous correspondence was by email so why was this by post etc). Napier agreed for me to pay £95 via DRP (which would incure additional handling costs). I complained. Napier now make the below offer. Napier state: To make our position perfectly clear to you we will NOT be cancelling this charge and it is our intention as we have made clear to pursue you to County Court if payment is not made. You may wish to seek independent legal advice if you are unsure of your position. Once your appeal to the IAS was rejected we wrote to you 07/05/16 giving you time to pay but you did not make the payment. In court we will produce a copy of that letter and our reasonable attempts to settle this case since then. In one FINAL attempt to bring this matter to a close without having to resort to litigation we will give you the opportunity to make payment directly to us again. Please now make payment of £95.00 by calling 0845 452 45 37 or by visiting our website. We do not charge a processing fee for your payment. Be aware we reserve the right without further warning to issue County Court proceedings against you should you fail to settle this matter within the period stipulated. We have addressed all of the points you have raised and we regret that due to the time taken on this matter we reserve the right not to reply to any further correspondence that you send prior to us issuing court proceedings. I notice there are no time frames in the above communication. Is this deemed a notice-before action letter? What would I expect next? When is it likely that (shoudl I still chose not to pay) that I would face additional costs levied for court action and solicitors etc...

dx100uk ... found prior thread now thank you.

Ah sorry. Couldn't find where that post was as the site here is not the easiest to navigate. What I have learnt since that post is that Advertising Standards Agency were interested in the signage as it breaches their codes and advised that Trading Standards would also have an interest in incorrect logo use (particularly on the car Napier drive around). The BPA are offering an extension for Napier to amend signage until the end of the year (this appears to be a special arrangement made by their head of operations) and The IPC claim incorrect signage isn't any of their issue as the IP for the logo is owned by The BPA so pretty much washed there hand of it. My thoughts are that considering the Terms and Conditions signage states inaccurate information then there is an error in the contract (which could be challenged under contract law). There is a possibility that the parking operator can be defeated on this and therefore any ticket issued when the signage is wrong would not be enforceable. It may not help my case (that occurred the day after the swap) but surely tickets being issued months after the change in circumstances should be thrown out by the courts and the parking operators forced to amend signage. (operators expect drivers to adhere to the rules so i feel so too should they).

Hello, I'd like advice on a scenario in relation to additional fees of debt agencies added to a court claim... A fixed charge amount for a ticket is set at £95.00 (with a reduced rate of £50.00 if paid in 14 days etc) A driver appeals the charge to the parking operator and the external body (POPLA/IAS) and loses so the £95.00 amount is due A driver still refuses to pay so a debt agency is used taking the costs up to £150.00 A driver still refuses to pay so court action commences Can the court action pursue the full £150.00 even if it is obvious from the debt agency website that they operate a no-win no-fee service for the claimant? It is clear that money exchanges hands only if the payment of the debt is secured by the agency. If the agency fail to secure payment of £150.00 there is no additional cost to the claimant? If the parking operator has spent no additional money surely they can not claim for this? What would a court defence on this be?

It may be of interest for people here to know that Napier Parking Ltd transferred their membership from The BPA to The IPC as of midnight on 29th February 2016. As such they are no longer an accredited member of The BPA and not entitled to say so on signage nor indicate that POPLA are part of their appeals route etc. I was initially informed by the BPA that Napier had 6 months to amend all signage yet this has not occurred 7 months later. Both The BPA and The IAS appear to be working collaboratively on extending this deadline so I contacted the Advertising Standards Agency who informed me that Napier appear to be in breach of the codes (consumer protection) and action will be taken; I was also advised that Trading Standards should be notified too and that the Competitions and Markets Authority would be interested in the arrangements. It may or may not stand as a defense that any tickets issued during this time (as mine was) that they were issued with contract inclusive of an error (providing the signs have not been updated at the site of issue) however it hopefully will put some external pressure on this parking operator.

Hi, yes all the signs in the car park state BPA and have the BPA logo and no mention of the IPC. I've taken a lot of photos of the signs etc and I was informed by the BPA that Napier have 6 months to change the signs (we're almost at the 3 month mark and there are no changes as of yet). I was told that Napier should have (with immediate effect on 1st March) covered over reference to BPA and POPLA while waiting for new signs with the IPC logo to be made so as to not misinform the public... at the time of writing this post this hasn't occurred either. Unfortunately the driver has been identified as this was a requirement of completing the initial appeal, I now realize I didn't have to volunteer this information and it would have made it harder for the company to get my details but ultimately they could still have obtained them just in a more roundabout way. Am I allowed to share details of my appeal and their response in this forum? The IAS rules state that I am unable to have discussions with anyone regarding the details? Can they enforce that?

Many thanks for the encouraging words. The parking company was Napier and I was issued the FCN on 1st March 2016. I've attached the T@Cs () and Reminder Signs () that mention BPA and POPLA. I've also attached a floor plan and some photos (my own and some used by the Napier during the appeal) I've censored vehicle number plates for privacy. The images can be seen in this attachment . I believe the FCN is unfair but I do welcome thoughts/comments. It transpires that Napier no longer fall under BPA/POPLA as of 29th February 2016 yet these signs are still on display which I believe is misleading. The only people forthcoming with this information was the BPA who advised that a 6 month period exists to make permanent changes to the signs but that they had requested temporary covering be placed over reference to BPA and POPLA so as to not mislead the public. The BPA recommended I contact Trading Standards which I have done and will follow up on the case reference with them in due course. The IAS refused to comment during the appeal when I asked them why I was making an appeal to them and not to POPLA as per the signs (not very transparent if you ask me). The IAS have also refused to give me the name(s) of the ADR officials when I requested these. I believe I am entitled to this information as stated in both http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/542/schedule/3/made and http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:165:0063:0079:EN:PDF . The IAS have also refused to answer why they will not consider mitigating circumstance when government guidelines seems to suggest that they should https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf. I plan to raise this with my local MP, The DVLA, Department for Transport and Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Also it's probably worth mentioning that Napier submitted inaccurate evidence to The IAS in their initial submission which I challenged in my appeal. The attachment () was submitted by Napier as evidence of the entrance to the car park (and I assume to show the blue signs etc so contract was made) but this is not the entrance to the parking facility, this document () shows the actual entrance. My submission was accompanied by a witness statement from the estate office staff confirming the initial submission of evidence by Napier was false. How can The IAS accept submission of false/inaccurate information? I was specifically told by The IAS in their ruling that "In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the law of contract and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating circumstances." I'm like a dog with a bone on this. I hate injustice and unfair treatment. I welcome any advice received. Many thanks. Napier T&Cs.pdf Napier Reminder Notice.pdf Entrance.pdf Napier Entrance - 1st Submission.pdf Parking Space.pdf

Fill what out?

I wonder if anyone can help? I received a PCN for parking in a disable bay at a private residential underground car park. I challenged this through both the appeal routes (parking operator and The IAS) based mainly on lack of clear signage at the bay. The ground markings are small and painted in red which were not visible while reversing in to the space and not visible once parked. There was a sign on a pillar however this was high up and to the side of the space and again not visible when reversing. My argument is that signage should have been directly behind the space in keeping with signs at other disabled bays in the car park. There was a perfectly pillar immediately behind the bay that a sign could have been attached to. I believe the current signage is unsatisfactory and amounts to "predatory tactics". What are people's thoughts? I also wonder what thoughts people have on on terms and conditions signage at the car park stating that the parking operator is a member of the BPA and appeals are heard by POPLAR when it transpires that they are not as they a new members of the IPC who use the IAS to hear appeals Does this incorrect signage have any baring on the arguments I can make at Court?