Hilarious! Not PoFA compliant and no evidence to back up the alleged contravention! Please get it out of your head that this is a "fine" or that any "offence" has been committed. If you can find either of those words in the Notice to Keeper (NtK), I will personally give you £100 for each occurrence.
The Keeper of the vehicle has received a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking firm for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. They have no idea who the driver is unless you blab it to them, inadvertently or otherwise. Don't tell 'em your name Pike!
No appeal, no matter how obvious that the Keeper cannot be liable, will not succeed. Even the secondary appeal to the IAS will not work because they are nit truly independent and are another tentacle of the scam. However, you still have to go through the motions but this will be a protracted affair and you will not be paying a penny to these scammers if you follow the advice.
So, to go through the motions, you first have to appeal, only as the Keeper. 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.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
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. UPE 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. UPE have no hope should you be stupid enough to try and litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Come back when they reject it for the IAS appeal wording to use.
Oh, and please edit your opening post to remove the blabbing of the drivers identity! Never EVER, EVER, EVER identify the driver. Only refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that"! A classic example of how to blab the drivers identity!
