No. That is not worded appropriately. Additionally, you have not included a question about the ambiguity of their reasonable cause of action. What evidence do they have that the driver didn't validate a parking session through the parking terminals, or why they cannot evidence a payment to cover full duration of a parking session. Is it one or the other?
You should start the appeal stating that you are appealing as the keeper:
1. I appeal as keeper. I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver and I decline to do so.
2. You have purported to invoke the statutory procedure for keeper liability under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, you have failed to comply with the strict requirements of PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) which states:
A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met:
The notice must - state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper — to pay the unpaid parking charges.
3. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver (as opposed, for example, to being a passenger) on any particular occasion, GroupNexus is unable to pursue me as driver.
4. GroupNexus have not evidenced any reasonable cause for requesting the keepers data from the DVLA. An ambiguous allegation that the driver did not validate a parking session through the parking terminals
or why GroupNexus cannot evidence a payment to cover full duration of a parking session does not satisfy the criteria for a reasonable cause of action according to the KADOE rules. I will be making a complaint to the DVLA about this.
5. Furthermore, GroupNexus has failed to including evidence of the signage that is purported to have given rise to a contract by conduct. Neither has GroupNexus shown that it has landowner authority to issue PCNs in its own name.
6. The inadequate signage and lack of evidence of landowner authority evidence shows that GroupNexus have failed to adequately prove that the driver is liable. As the keeper, I reserve the right to expand on these points at POPLA should GroupNexus fail to cancel this PCN.