@clarelfranklin11... Absolutely NOT!!!!!!!!!! Ignore the advice you received about paying £20 when you don't own a penny.
That Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not compliant with PoFA 2012 which means that they cannot hold the Keeper liable for the charge. They have no idea who the driver is unless the Keeper blabs it to them, inadvertently or otherwise.
No one who receives this advice pays a penny to (not so) Smart Parking.
SO far, you have mistakenly called it a "fine" which it is not. I will give you £100 for every occurrence of the word "fine" or "penalty" or "offence" you can show me in the correspondence. As with most of the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree, you are assuming that (not so) Smart Parking are some sort of authority that can issue a "fine" when all it is is a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking company for an alleged breach of contract by the driver.
Easy one to deal with… as long as the
unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the
known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the
unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the
unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the
unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Instead of wasting your money, even if you are stupid enough to part with only £20, you appeal with the following, only as the Keeper:
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Smart Parking has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Smart have no hope at IAS, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
