No.
The legislation requires that the NtK invite the keeper to pay the charges OR nominate another driver.
I understand the point which you are making - that the operator has a choice as to which one they invite the driver to do - but that isn't in keeping with the grammar of the text of the legislation.
Mmm. I understand the point which
you are making, but IMO the grammar is clear. The whole of Para 9(2) talks about what the notice must do or contain - it must do (a) and (b) and (c) etc, until we get to (e) which is to be read as 'the notice must do (e)(i) or the notice must do (e)(ii)'.
If we look at 9(2)(a) it says that the notice must "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked
and the period of parking to which the notice relates".
9(2)(b) - "inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking
and that the parking charges have not been paid in full"
IMO if 9(2)(e) was meant to say that the notice must invite the keeper to either pay up or to throw the driver under the bus it would have been worded something like
(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and
a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper to pay
the unpaid parking charges or if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle,
to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
But as it is, with a 9(2)(e)(i) separated from a 9(2)(e)(ii) with a '
; or' it's not saying 'the notice must invite the keeper to do this or to do that', it's saying 'the notice must invite the keeper to do this or the notice must invite the keeper to do that'.
But as ixxy says, it would need a court case to determine exactly what it means.
