Total male bovine excrement from the incompetents at Britannia’s back office. They know perfectly well that—by their own admission—the NtK is
not PoFA-compliant. Without the driver’s identity, a POPLA appeal would be unwinnable for them and they know it.
This little gem from them is rubbish:
“This Parking Charge is not POFA compliant, however, payment can still be sought under the old ‘implied-contract-with-the-driver’ rules used prior to POFA.
Under Contract Law there is a probability that the Keeper was the Driver if the Keeper does not nominate anyone else.”
A classic example of intellectual malnourishment by whoever authored it. Pre-PoFA “implied contract” doesn’t let an operator pursue the
keeper; and there is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver. The burden remains on the claimant to prove who drove. Hand-waving about “probability” is not evidence.
Anyway, they folded and cancelled the PCN. Quite right, too.
If it were me, I'd follow up with this:
Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for confirming cancellation of PCN [reference]. Your own correspondence concedes the NtK was not compliant with PoFA. In the absence of admissible evidence of the driver’s identity, you had—and have—no viable claim against the keeper.
Should you ever try to repeat the exercise, I will simply refer you to the answer given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).
Yours faithfully,