Free Traffic Legal Advice

That being said, besides the operators failure to display the correct time upon do I actually have any other meritorious points? (In your opinion)

All the points mentioned so far are worth including. I'd say the machine not working is the strongest specific to the case, as it was entirely outside your control, and an error on their part, that you have evidence to support (include this in the appeal).

The address on the NtK is important because it must be accurate enough to identify the relevant land. Any ambiguity is an appeal point and also a defence point in that, an address that does not identify the relevant land, renders the NtK non-compliant with PoFA and so there can be no keeper liability.

I wouldn't. Focus on hard evidence, rather than the unverifiable opinions of others.

If you have already told Euro Car Parks that you were the driver when you originally appealed then PoFA and keeper liability are irrelevant.

Including it serves only to distract from your relevant points, in my view.

Thank you @b789 and @DWMB2 it sounds like the consensus is to drop this point. Do I still include the point that the addresses on the NTK don't match the address of the parking location or is this also nullified by identifying the diver?

Anything that you are relying on to try and invoke no keeper liability due to non-compliance with PoFA is not going to work because the driver is already identified.

The fact that the address on the NtK does not match the location where the alleged breach of contract occurred should be argued on the basis of a breach of the ATA CoP that the PPC belongs to.

I cannot find anything on ATA CoP. If Euro Car Parks are a member of the British Parking Associations Approved Operators Scheme (AOS) then can I just reference the BPA CoP, specifically clause 21.12 relating to POFA 9(2)(a)?

OP, a quick skip through relevant law.

You posted: I do not have a copy as it was sent via Euro Car Parks website, I made this appeal the same day I received the letter. In this appeal, I did identify myself as the driver.

So, the NTK is now redundant as far as being a statutory notice but not as regards conveying the particulars of the creditor's claim for which there is no prescribed format as regards a claim against a driver for breach of contract.

Why?

Because a NTK is a creation of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 whose sole objective is to regulate how creditors may kick into touch the centuries-old legal principle that only the parties to a contract have rights and responsibilities under that contract by allowing the creditor to hold the keeper/hirer liable for breaches in lieu.

You do not fall into this category - because you have identified yourself as the liable party to the contract(AKA the driver) therefore it is a straightforward issue of whether the driver is liable to pay a parking charge to the creditor for breaching the terms of contract by which they were deemed bound by entering and parking on this private land. It is a matter pure and simple of contract law and POPLA's remit.

Of course there is common ground between PoFA and contract law, there's bound to be. But don't be fooled into thinking that aspects which are common fall to be considered under PoFA, they don't. 

So, what were the terms of the contract into which you entered, was there a breach etc? These are the issues for POPLA.

But why POPLA you may ask if PoFA doesn't apply?

Because members of the BPA's AOS have signed up to this and the Code of Practice by virtue of their membership.

And as regards bp's assertion that the level of charge is an abuse of process, IMO this is not correct as each case turns on its own facts. However, it could be argued to be but IMO the issue at large is what additional charges if any could a creditor add to their claim while simply pursuing the driver for a breach of contract...the answer to which would require a detailed examination of the terms of that specific contract e.g. their clarity, fairness etc.

Is my view.