A&S used to issue what is referred to as a SuperNIP - a combined NIP/s. 172 requirement/COFP (and possibly offer of SAC). Presumably when you say that you have accepted the NIP online, you mean that you have accepted either a COFP or SAC online?

They still were around this time last year.

You could confirm self as driver and pick an option. That needed an envolope.

You could nominate somebody else on line.

There was a link provided to book a SAC, obviously in addition to posting the response.

Impact on your daughter is important, possibly also impact on grandparents. That can carry more impact.

With regards to subject access request my data should be on there as a named driver so on whst basis could they refuse?

Make it clear that you regard it as your personal data, and in the event of a refusal because they disagree make it clear that you will go to the ICO - and do it.

In my limited experience one well known purveyor of multi car policies seemed to take the view that by releasing data about me to me they would be violating the policyholders data rights. (An initial response was, in effect: "not your data. Won't tell you anything").

For later, should it get as far as payment.

- If the company has bought some bizarre form of premium parking that (unlike a penalty charge) is a taxable expense.

- If the company is VAT registered the above would be a taxable supply. There are certain obligations then on the supply to provide an appropriate VAT invoice.

Wrong thread.

You can find the Moran decision here

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/dart-charge-pcn-flaws/msg27921/#msg27921

It is, so far, untested against a CAZ case. Bristol have shown substantial reluctance in letting a case get to tribunal where this argument has been raised.

Will it work for CAZ? It ought to, it's the same legislation. But there are other considerations.

- In Moran an underlying charge had been paid. An adjudicator may consider that in some way.

- The authority have, in effect, agreed to drop the penalty in exchange for the CAZ fee. Might this hold some sway with an adjudicator.

- If you win, are the authority still entitled to attempt to enforce the CAZ payment being due (I guess they'd have to ask you nicely and eventually sue you if they felt they really wanted to collect). I don't see any regulation which would discharge the letter ability. Though it might.

An adjudicator is not bound by another adjudicators decisions. Even one made by the Chief Adjudicator.

It is a strange state of affairs that the charging order for a CAZ can legitimately demand the toll, however the underlying regulations give no means of enforcement.

Not all charging schemes do allow the fee and a penalty (Birmingham don't, TFL don't for example). I think it may be the case that these were better advised.

(This also leads to another oddity. If the scheme does not apply the charge in addition and exceeds the penalty charge then why pay at all. Just settle discounted penalties).

I would like to see a CAZ case on this point, but you do need to consider what may be gained either way.

Perhaps contacting the local ticket office and enquiring if a NIPhas been issued might be prudent. Otherwise when does one stop waiting for it to come.