If it was compliant, under PoFA the keeper has 28 days from the day after the NtK is "given" to provide the operator with the full name and current address of the driver to effectively transfer liability. After this period, the parking operator can hold the keeper liable for the charge, and they are under no obligation to accept a late transfer of liability.
I think I would take a different view.
Paragraph 4 of PoFA states that:
4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—
(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met
Parapraph 5 states:
5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—
(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.
(2)Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper.
I believe the part I have highlighted in bold is important here. 'Proceedings' are not defined in the wording of PoFA, but I would argue that this would be widely understood to mean County Court proceedings. I personally think one could convincingly argue that instructing a debt collector does not constitute beginning proceedings. 5(1)(b) does not cease to apply immediately after the 28 day period, only when proceedings are begun, which may happen
at any time after said 28 days.
If the keeper provides the driver's details at any point before 'proceedings' have begun, then Paragraph 5(1)(b) would cease to be the case, as the creditor would be able to take steps to enforce against the driver.
However, it is a moot point as long as the advice given here is followed.
Agreed - so probably not worth too much technical discussion here, although more broadly I think the above is an important distinction.