Before you metaphorically blow both feet off with your comments above, you need to understand that the "Driver" and the "Keeper" are separate legal entities. The Driver is always liable. The Keeper is only liable if the parking operator has fully complied with ALL the the requirements of PoFA 2012 and the Driver remains unidentified/unknown.
The person who received the postal Notice to Keeper is the Registered Keeper. Smart Parking have no idea who was driving. However, because you have blabbed above the following:
A month later the driver received a parking ticket.
It is easily deduced that the Keeper was also the Driver. So, if Smart Parking have not fully complied with all the requirements of PoFA, they don't need to worry because you have given them the identity of the Driver... you!!!
So, first things, never identify the the driver, inadvertently or otherwise!. Secondly, we would need to see both sides of the NtK to determine whether they have fully complied with PoFA.
Please read this before you do anything else:
READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guideNow, you also need to understand that your belief that it is not enforceable, are famous last words when it comes to recipients wondering why they suddenly have a trashed credit record because of an unknown default CCJ. Not since 2012 when PoFA was introduced has anyone been advised to ignore a PCN.
As this is a (not so) Smart Parking PCN, you should appeal with the following:
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. Smart Parking 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. Smart Parking have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
They will reject the appeal but you have put them on notice that they are not dealing with low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree.
In the meantime, show us the other side of the NtK.