Machines not working-UKPC LTD

Livinonaprayer

Hi, so as expected appeal rejected, and the keeper is putting together the POPLA paperwork.

Keeper has so far pulled the paragraph about no evidence of landowner authority, because nowhere on the signage does it state who the landowner is.  Is that correct?

Also on the night in question neither machine was working, and the driver did not have a phone to either pay by phone or take pics of broken machines.  The only mention of broken machines on the notice states "in case of machine failure please inform UKPC customer services". As the driver had no phone that was impossible too.  Is this discrimination, assuming that everyone has a phone?

Keeper has also pulled the paragraphs about keeper liability -

"As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party." and  more in the same vein.

Is the keeper on the right track here? has plenty of photos of all signage