CEL (non-FOPA complient) NTK appeal - is it even worth including these details?

Piggy-bank_2

Hi, I've read - and hopefully learnt! -  so much on here today while trying to support a registered keeper who has just received a NTK / 'parking charge' from CEL. We're planning to use the template in the newbies thread, but I'd appreciate a sanity check on a couple of points if anyone is willing please!

The car-parking in question is for a number of service providers/businesses in a single building, with free parking so long as VRN is entered into a tablet at the business visited.
The driver did not see any obvious signs saying that any particular areas of parking around the building were for specific customers, so asked on arrival at family members pre-arranged appointment and was advised they could just park in any empty space but must register their reg on tablet, so they did. 

First - the incident occurred in early November but NTK is dated 6 weeks later - on this point alone I understand it's non-FOPA compliant and even if the first stage appeal fails, it's extremely unlikely to go beyond a POPLA if we do not identify the driver? (The NTK doesn't mention FOPA or claim anything about keeper liability)

Secondly - from a stress perspective, we'd really like it overturned ASAP, so wondering about including additional details at this stage (but at no point actually identifying the driver). Thoughts are: (i) Including a copy of appointment booking letter (demonstrating genuine site customer) and (ii) stating that the VRN was entered on tablet? Would this just negate the bit about denying contractual agreement? Also as it identifies exactly which business they visited, could it just open them up to a claim that they were in the wrong part of the car park etc?  

Many thanks!

Redx

It's POFA , not what you wrote

If no windscreen PCN was issued , it failed POFA timescales , never mind anything else

So appeal as keeper using the blue text template , adding a one liner that the PCN does not comply with POFA so there is no keeper liability

No blabbing about who was driving

No additional details

But bear in mind that you are discussing plan B , whereas the last section above should be plan A , never mind plan C POPLA or plan D ( court )

Get plan A done ASAP , but never give the opposition ammunition

Piggy-bank_2

Thanks/apologies Redx - that's typical after thinking I'd absorbed so much useful stuff

Coupon-mad

I'd remove the line about a pay and display machine and replace it with the fact that the NTK arrived too late for keeper liability  (we are assuming that there was no windscreen PCN?).

Piggy-bank_2

Correct, there was no windowscreen PCN, so first contact was the charge notice after 6+ weeks. 

I understand it's a fairly new arrangement and a long thread on local social media suggests that CEL have suddenly sprung into action, possibly retrospectively after installing some really poor signage.  Some people just didn't know that parking management had just been introduced so haven't registered, but others (like us) believe they've complied with the requirements, and even staff who were supposed to be on a whitelist have received PCNs.  Its horrible to think about how of these folk are vulnerable and will just pay up to the cowboys.

Coupon-mad

Make sure you don't imply who was driving.  An easy win awaits the keeper.