As regards the procedural point, IMO the PCN fails to comply with regulation 9(7) of the General Regs, namely:
(7) A penalty charge notice given under this regulation must include the information set out in—
(a)Schedule 2, and
(b)regulation 3(1) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations.
In this case reg 3(1)(c) which specifies that:
3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the following information—
(a)that a person on whom a notice to owner is served may, in accordance with these Regulations, make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and, if those representations are rejected, appeal to an adjudicator;
(b)that if, before a notice to owner is served, representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified in the notice for the purpose those representations will be considered by the enforcement authority;
(c)that if a notice to owner is served despite the representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.
Note the use of 'must be made'. This is an instruction whose purpose is to notify the recipient of the PCN of the 'owner's' liability and that notwithstanding the driver's submissions they, the owner, must action the NTO if one is served.
I cannot find this in the PCN.