There is a technical flaw in the Notice to Keeper (NtK) which means that the keeper cannot be liable for the charge. Only the driver. CPM do not know who the driver is (even though you have blabbed it in your OP) and unless the keeper blabs it to CPM, they cannot legally claim it from the keeper.
The technical flaws are that there is no invitation for the keeper to pay the charge and there is no "period" of parking noted. In order for the operator to be able to hold the keeper liable for the charge if they don't know the identity of the driver, PoFA requires the operator to fully comply with all the requirements of the Act.
Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012
This paragraph mandates that for a parking operator to hold the vehicle's registered keeper liable for a parking charge, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include:
An "Invitation to Pay": The notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
Exact Wording: The wording must clearly convey this invitation and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient. The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to fully incorporate this invitation renders the notice non-compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012.
Non-Compliance Issue
If the NtK fails to include a clear "invitation to pay", or any synonym of the word "invitation", this omission is a breach of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Even if the notice suggests that payment is required, without an explicit invitation directed towards the keeper to settle the charge, the notice does not meet the exacting requirements of PoFA 2012.
Significance of Full Compliance
Strict Liability: The law mandates full and exact compliance with the specified wording and content outlined in PoFA 2012.
Partial or Substantial Compliance Insufficient: Even if the notice largely complies with other requirements, the absence of a clear invitation to the keeper to pay is a significant flaw. The operator cannot rely on partial or even substantial compliance — every element as specified in the legislation must be present and correct.
Consequences for the Operator
Challenge Basis: If the notice is found to lack this crucial element, it can be used as a basis to challenge the parking charge.
Keeper Liability: The operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper, which significantly weaken their case if the notice to the driver or other requirements are also flawed or if the driver is unknown.
Conclusion
In summary, a PCN that does not include an explicit "invitation" for the keeper to pay the charge is not fully compliant with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012. Since the law demands strict adherence, any omission, even if minor, invalidates the notice and relieves the keeper of any obligation to pay. This should be raised in any appeal or legal response to the charge.
Also, under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), for a Notice to Keeper (NtK) to be compliant and thus able to hold the keeper liable for a parking charge, it must meet specific requirements. One of these requirements is that the NtK must specify "the period of parking to which the notice relates" (Paragraph 9(2)(a)).
Compliance with "Period of Parking" Requirement
Stating a Single Point in Time: If the NtK only provides a single point in time (e.g., the time the vehicle was observed), this does not fully satisfy the requirement of specifying a "period of parking." A single point in time does not describe a range or duration, which is what a "period" implies. The vehicle could have been there for one minute or one year.
Reference to "Period Immediately Preceding": Simply stating that the notice "relates to the period immediately preceding" the single point in time does not provide a specific period of parking. This phrase is vague and does not define a concrete duration or time frame, which could be necessary to establish when the parking event occurred.
Conclusion
Based on the information provided and the requirements set out under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of PoFA, a Notice to Keeper that only specifies a single point in time and states that it "relates to the period immediately preceding" that point would not be fully compliant with all the requirements of the Act. For the NtK to be compliant, it should explicitly state a specific "period of parking" — a defined duration or range of time during which the alleged parking event took place.
If the NtK fails to specify this "period of parking," then it does not meet all the requirements of Paragraph 9, and the keeper may not be held liable for the parking charge under PoFA.
So, based on those two points alone, the keeper cannot be liable as long as they are not identified as the driver and the only way that can happen, is if the keeper admits to being the driver. There is no legal obligation on the keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.
The driver is always liable but the burden of proof is on the operator to prove that the keeper was also the driver. They can't.
Other appeal points may be available such as signage but you've not provided any evidence of that so we can't comment. Maybe a few pictures of the signs would give some indiction. In the evidential photo on the NtK, there appears to be sign of some sort just in front of the vehicle.
Unfortunately, as CPM are an IPC operator, no appeal, no matter how well constructed, will succeed as there is no money in it for them. Also, it is highly unlikely that a secondary appeal to the IAS will succeed either. It can be tried but they are an incestuous lot and tend to look after their paymaster members interests, not the motorists.
Has Plan A been tried? A complaint to the landowner asking them to get their agent, CPM, to cancel the PCN?
The following appeal to CPM will at least alert them that you are not low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree that is going to fall for the "mugs discount" and are prepared to fight this all the way to a county court hearing in the small claims track, if necessary:
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, namely 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(a), 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. CPM 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. So you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
