Free Traffic Legal Advice

Is this the only/most likely option of a successful appeal? Thanks

Is this the only/most likely option of a successful appeal? Thanks

Put it this way, if byelaws do apply, CEL will be sh....er, rather worried.

If byelaws don't apply  then do I have any other options

Whilst I defer to @b789's knowledge & experience, I'm in favour of the 'chuck everything in, inc the kitchen sink' approach, as long as there is a reasonable explanation.
So, the wordage on the pcn and the site sign. (If you look back to the 'Bull' judgment posted earlier, you'll see DJ (now HHJ, I believe) Glen's considered opinion (obiter?).
You never know....
Ultimately it would be for a judge to decide.....if it gets that far.

An initial appeal has not yet happened

Four pages and the initial appeal hasn't even been sent yet! You will need to appeal each PCN individually. As CEL are going to reject all initial appeals, your aim is to get a POPLA code for your secondary appeal.

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 fully 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.

You are appealing only as the 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. CEL 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. CEL have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

The OP could use an (the) example, if there is one, of why the NTK does not comply with PoFA.

At present, they'll simply be writing words but not understanding their application.

IMO, I think you should take a stab at the creditor not having authority to demand parking charges in their own name. This arises because their client, Everyone Active, manage the leisure centre under contract from Bristol City Council and occupy the site under licence which does not entitle Everyone Active and therefore their agent to demand parking charges as creditor.

You might as well. IMO, it's a better punt than 'byelaws'.

Original Poster (ie you).

Thanks for the advice. So should I add to the text that b789 provided a few days ago