OK. So Britannia is relying on PoFA in their NtK to be able to hold the Keeper liable for the charge should the driver not be identified.
As you have seen, in their response, they have stated that they require the drivers details otherwise they will hold you, the Keeper liable for the charge. However, there is a technical failure in their NtK that means that it is not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA, meaning that they can't hold you, the Keeper, liable.
Unless you or anyone else can find it, there is no "invitation", not any synonym of the word, for the Keeper to pay the charge. PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) specifically states that the NtK MUST invite the Keeper to pay the charge.
Under PoFA, in order to hold the registered keeper of a vehicle liable for a parking charge, the NtK MUST meet specific legal requirements. One of the key requirements is that the NtK must include an explicit "invitation" to the keeper to either pay the charge or, if they were not the driver, provide the name and address of the driver.
Simply stating in the NtK that the parking charge must be paid is not sufficient. The wording must provide the keeper with a clear choice: either pay the charge or provide the driver’s details. This is important because PoFA is designed to protect keepers who were not the driver or the driver has not been disclosed, and this invitation is a mandatory step for transferring liability from the driver to the keeper.
In your case, the NtK fails to provide this explicit invitation. Instead of inviting you, the keeper, to pay the charge or provide the driver’s details, it simply demands payment. This does not comply with PoFA, because a demand for payment assumes keeper liability, which cannot apply unless all legal steps have been followed, including this invitation.
It's important to understand that partial or even substantial compliance with PoFA is insufficient. If any of the required elements are missing or incorrectly presented, Britannia cannot hold the keeper liable for the charge.
Therefore, you should not reveal the identity of the driver. By doing so, Britannia would then be able to pursue the driver directly, removing the protection PoFA offers you as the keeper.
While Britannia is likely to reject your initial appeal, you can then escalate the matter to POPLA. POPLA is required to follow the law, and you should point out that the NtK does not comply with PoFA because it fails to include the explicit invitation required by Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). POPLA should then uphold your appeal and cancel the parking charge.
However, if the POPLA assessor fails to agree with this point, remember that the county court is the ultimate dispute resolution service. Only a judge can decide whether you owe the operator a debt, and non-compliance with PoFA is a strong legal defence. Should the matter ever escalate to a court claim that is not discontinued or struck out, a judge will carefully consider whether the NtK meets the requirements of PoFA, and non-compliance will likely lead to the claim being dismissed.
