Here's a revised draft response:
PPS' response fails to sufficiently rebut the points made in my appeal.
Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012:
PPS claim that the images contained on their notice are sufficient to specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. This is false. The images provided on the notice cover a period of just 20 seconds, clearly insufficient to demonstrate that the relevant consideration period has been exceeded, and clearly insufficient to specify the alleged period of parking. They also refer to "online images", which they claim indicate the duration the vehicle was onsite. This is not true. The images they have supplied cover a period of just 20 seconds. In any event, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA is clear that the notice must specify the period of parking. Whether additional information is available online is entirely irrelevant for the purposes of keeper liability - the information provided on the Notice to Keeper must be sufficient to specify the period of parking, without reliance on any supplementary evidence found elsewhere. Their notice fails to meet this standard. They have failed to comply with the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act and as such are unable to recover the charge from me, the registered keeper. For this reason, the appeal should be upheld.
Consideration Period:
PPS claim that because the driver cannot be seen in their evidential photos, this means the driver left the site and accordingly is not entitled to a consideration period. This claim is nonsensical and does not stand up to basic scrutiny. PPS have provided just 2 evidential photos - both of these are images of the rear of the vehicle, taken at close range, just 20 seconds apart. In order to consider the terms on offer, a driver must exit the vehicle in order to read the signage, and by necessity must leave the vehicle unattended to do so. It is laughable for PPS to suggest that because the driver cannot be seen in their 2 close range images of the vehicle, that they must have therefore left the site.
PPS have produced no evidence to support their claim that the driver left the site. There is therefore no merit to their claim that the driver is not entitled to a consideration period. PPS have provided no evidence that the vehicle remained on the site for longer than the consideration period. For this reason, the appeal should be upheld.
[/quote]
