The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant. Paragraph 9(2)(h) and 9(2)(e)(i) are not complied with. Be aware that this will end up being a claim in the county court, which is exactly where you want it to end up, if you don't want to pay these scammers. However, I will not be wasting my time giving advice on how to proceed unless you agree that you intend to fight this all the way.
If you are, then proceed with the following advice... as long as the
unknown drivers identity is not revealed. 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. PPO 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. PPO have no hope at IAS, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
