Free Traffic Legal Advice

These are simple to defend as long as no one makes any procedural errors. You have stated above that the Keeper wrote to PPC and "threw the driver under the bus" by naming them. You then go on to suggest sending another appeal trying to rely on PoFA and declining to identify the driver, even though you know that the driver has already been identified. 

So, trying to make sense of the situation... Did the Keeper transfer the liability from them to the driver correctly as stated in the Notice to Keeper (NtK)? Did they provide a name and valid address for service AND pass the NtK to the driver? What EXACTLY was done on 3rd September?

Once the Keeper notifies the PPC of the driver's identity and provides a valid and serviceable address for the driver and has passed the NtK to the driver, PoFA 9(2)(e)(ii) outlines that the PPC cannot hold the Keeper liable for the charge. At this point, liability is effectively transferred to the driver.

Under PoFA, the PPC is not explicitly required to issue a new notice directly to the driver. Instead, the PPC should pursue the identified driver directly for the parking charge. The driver, having been notified by the Keeper or the operator, can then appeal the PCN in their own right, as the liability has been transferred.

However, in practice, many operators will issue a new notice to the identified driver, but they are not strictly required to under PoFA. The driver should still respond and manage the PCN as though they have received formal notification.

If the PPC fails to take appropriate action against the driver and continues to pursue the Keeper despite notification, the Keeper may have grounds to challenge the PPC for not following PoFA correctly.

So, on to the allegation itself. What evidence have they provided to back up their allegation? Please show us an image of the NtK that was received, suitably redacted of personal info but leave all dates and times showing. Also, have you checked on the PPCs appeals website for any other evidential photos they may have? Do you have any photos of the signage at the location so we can see the exact wording that supposedly makes up the contract?

It is highly unlikely this would ever get to court, if it were to progress that far as these "left site" cases are commonly known as "toothbrush" cases because the poor legal reps that have tried to prosecute the claim in court on behalf of the claimant have been severely reprimanded by judges in the past for wasting court time with allegations that cannot be proven and should they try and do the same again, they should bring a toothbrush as they are likely to be incarcerated for their time wasting.

So, until we know all dates and the precise allegation made in the NtK, which PPC and whether an IPC or a BPA member, it is difficult to provide any more advice.