IMO the decision to reject appeals on the basis of the cited case is correct, however I think that the reasoning is incomplete.
The 2007 regs provided:
1. A penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 must...state—
Whereas the 2022 regs provide:
The information to be included in a penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 is
My emphases.
It seems clear that the current regs take a more relaxed view as regards specifying how matters are to be conveyed and when, as in these cases, two words are synonymous by virtue of their context then IMO this is compliance and the 'information' has been included, let alone substantial compliance.