I'm not necessarily saying it's factually incorrect, simply that it's including stuff that is a requirement anyway and has nothing to do with whether or not it's on a Permit (and please note that there's no difference in the rules if it's on a PFA Permit or a CAA Permit).
I have a little bit of an issue with the provision of what to the unitiated might appear to be authoritative information without any reference to the law. TL 2.09 doesn't provide any references. Paras 1 to 4 refer to PFA aircraft as though there is some difference between them and any other Permit aircraft and paras 5 and 6 are no different to the requirements for learning to fly in any SEP, Permit or otherwise.
Sorry if that sounds pedantic or curmudgeonly, it's not intended to be. As you probably know, I am a PFA member and fly an aircraft that is on a PFA Permit. The real issue is not whether or not it's a PFA aircraft but whether or not the instruction is remunerated. That's the question that determines whether or not it is aerial work, which in turn determines the airworthiness certification requirements of the aircraft. There is an exemption for C of A maintained to Private Cat standards, which is explained in AIC 48/06 (White125) and there's another exemption for Ex-Mil Permit Aircraft explained in AIC 60/06 (White 128). There is also an exemption in the ANO that allows instructors to be remunerated when giving instruction in Microlights. As far as I am aware there is no exemption for Permit a/c that are not Ex-Mil or Microlights, though I will be happy to be proved wrong. In the absence of any exemption its back to "With the permission of the CAA", a bit of wording noticeably absent from the PFA advice.
All of that said, it is my personal view that a Permit and a C of A are simply two different ways of satisfying the powers that be that an aircraft is airworthy. If the aircraft is airworthy (you find me someone in the CAA prepared to say that an a/c with a valid Permit is not) then it's suitability as a training machine should be determined by its characteristics not by the method by which its airworthiness is certified. Just my 2p's worth.
Mike