04-02-2026, 06:55 PM
They are now expressly treating what you sent by email as an appeal, which is the main thing that mattered. That means the appeal is now safely in play and they have boxed themselves in on timing.
Their attempt to defend the portal is beside the point. The problem was never whether a keeper can tick a box saying they are the registered keeper. The problem is that the mandatory “reason” wording is framed in the first person as though the appellant is describing what they themselves did, which is plainly unsuitable for a keeper who is not admitting to being the driver.
For now, I would not get dragged into a side argument about that. They have confirmed receipt, confirmed they will review it as an appeal, and confirmed that this email address can be used if there is difficulty with the portal. That is enough. Keep that email safe.
If/when they reject, then we deal with the rejection and their inevitable nonsense at the next stage. If they fail to respond within 28 days, that becomes another point against them.
Their attempt to defend the portal is beside the point. The problem was never whether a keeper can tick a box saying they are the registered keeper. The problem is that the mandatory “reason” wording is framed in the first person as though the appellant is describing what they themselves did, which is plainly unsuitable for a keeper who is not admitting to being the driver.
For now, I would not get dragged into a side argument about that. They have confirmed receipt, confirmed they will review it as an appeal, and confirmed that this email address can be used if there is difficulty with the portal. That is enough. Keep that email safe.
If/when they reject, then we deal with the rejection and their inevitable nonsense at the next stage. If they fail to respond within 28 days, that becomes another point against them.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
