Well, your MP is a bit of a thicko. Wise is an IPC member, not a BPA member so all that waffle is useless.
You must make sure that your PALS complaint goes as high as possible up the food chain. Anything that does not involve getting them to get Wise to cancel the PCN is useless. Some lowly minion saying that they will liaise with Wise is not going to get you anywhere. Your escalation up to the Trust CEO is your best bet.
If Plan A fails, do not bother with Plan C (appeal to the kangaroo court that is the IAS). You move on to Plan D which to weather all subsequent reminders and debt collector letters. You wait for if/when they decide to issue a letter of claim and you respond to that robustly. If/when they issue a claim, you can include the Jopson v Homeguard appeal in your defence.
Stopping for a short duration to attend to a small vicissitude is not parking. In your case, dealing with an emergency medical issue to unload and assist the patient into the hospital before returning to park the car was precisely that.
20. Neither party was able to direct the court to any authority on the meaning of the word “park”. However, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following: “To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a suitable place until required.” The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes. Discussion in this area left the respondent in obvious difficulties, from which the attractive advocacy of Miss Fenwick was unable to rescue it.
21. Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable, a consideration which those instructing Miss Fenwick seemed reluctant to accept. I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice.
The above appeal is persuasive and any reasonable district judge would likely consider this in this case. You can read the whole transcript of Jopson v Homeguard here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ezhkj6epu66l1r/JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-2906J-Approved.pdf?dl=0
