As long as you follow the advice, you won't be paying a penny to MET. However, it will be a protracted period before this is all over. It will eventually lead to a county court claim but as long as it is defended, it will either be struck out or discontinued.
There is no evidence of "parking". Only evidence of time on site, which is not the same. Therefore it is not PoFA compliant and only the driver can be liable. There was a very recent case that reached a hearing and the judge threw the case out precisely because the ANPR images are not evidence of "parking" and the Notice mentions that the charge relates to a period of "parking".
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. MET 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. MET have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
