Whilst the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was given within the relevant period, it is still not fully compliant with All the requirements of PoFA and so the appeal you have submitted is still relevant.
The relevant statutory requirement from Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012:
“The notice must— (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— (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges.”
This is a mandatory requirement. The Notice to Keeper must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the charge if the driver is not identified.
Now here is the wording used in the Notice to Keeper (NtK) from Britannia:
"You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. If you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time, please inform us of the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice on to them."
Nowhere in this wording is there any invitation for the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge. The notice says the driver is required to pay, and that if the keeper was not the driver, they should pass the notice on and provide the driver’s details. It then says that if the charge is not paid or the driver is not identified, Britannia has the right to recover the charge from the keeper.
This is not an invitation to pay. It is a statement of intent to pursue. That fails to meet the requirement under PoFA 9(2)(e)(i), which requires an actual invitation to the keeper to pay the charge.
Because this requirement has not been met, Britannia cannot rely on Schedule 4 of PoFA to hold the keeper liable. They may only pursue the driver, whose identity they admit they do not know. This is a clear procedural failure.
All this can be explained to POPLA when they reject the initial appeal.