Please show the rest of the Notice to Driver (NtD) that was attached to the vehicle. From what we can see, the NtD is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA 2012, paragraph 7. There is no mention whether the Keeper can be liable if the driver is not identified. Also, there is no mention of who the 'creditor' is.
They have no idea who the driver is. As there is no legal obligation on the Keeper, who is also unknown at this moment, to identify the driver, you should use the following tactic...
On Friday 22nd August, no earlier, and no later than Monday 25th August (it is a bank holiday weekend) you appeal, only as the Keeper and at no point must the unknown drivers identify be revealed. 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 Driver (NtD) 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. Park Control24 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 NtD can only hold the driver liable. PC24 would face insurmountable difficulty should you be reckless enough to litigate. So, you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Come back when the appeal is rejected for advice on the next step, as this is an IPC member company.