And the above letters written to and received from them doesn't affect this? Oh well, maybe if I can find enough sources that say to just ignore them, then my father can be persuaded to relax about this.

Hello people, requesting advice, A short while ago, and envelope addressed to my father arrived with a parking charge from G24, as the registered keeper of the vehicle they had snapped leaving a car park, a car that it is in fact myself (and occasionally my mother) who drives. Anyways, after a quick Google, I found a forum with a letter to send as follows: This letter was indeed sent of, although I think that was maybe a rushed decision, partly due to having my father on my back to deal with this, as he can be very narrow-minded with this sort of thing, not to mention he gets stressed very easily. Alas, I digress... Anyway, the following is the reply received: Now, based on the titbit of reading I've been doing and common sense, I've noticed a few things in their reply, both about the argument itself and than their ability to enforce it. As much as we are entitled to tell them to go swivel? So they are admitting that it is the driver that is liable for the sum. Despite wording that my infer the opposite, should my father still be able to point blank deny that he was the driver (which he wasn't anyway). Surely exiting and leaving a car park, which is (almost surely the only) photographic evidence they claim to have does not constitute a 'clear' contravention. For one, surely I haven't parked until I've stopped in a bay and left my car? But finally, as I touched on early, the nature of my father simply won't allow a common train of thought to just ignore the letters, so it looks like this will need to played out to get them to go away. But basically, as it is more myself dealing with this, some advice as to exactly how to proceed would be more than welcome. Cheers.