POPLA Appeal [Premier Park Ltd] (Short Time Left)

Coupon-mad

Yes but they should not have to cut their appeal down to one point - and it would be very difficult to advise new posters who might think they have a solid winning point when they don't. On a case by case basis, yes certain people could do a one-point appeal but most can't.

This OP had a slam-dunk winning point and put it as #1 so it was crystal clear, so I think we must simply blame POPLA and educate them with a flurry of complaints. This cannot be ignored, it is diabolical never mind the other points in the appeal, which was clearly argued.

Guys_Dad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes but they should not have to cut their appeal down to one point - and it would be very difficult to advise new posters who might think they have a solid winning point when they don't. On a case by case basis, yes certain people could do a one-point appeal but most can't.

This OP did and they put it as point #1 so it was crystal clear, so I think we must simply blame POPLA and educate them with a flurry of complaints.

I know we differ on the point of appeal lengths and your record on here is legendary, but you have written above "Yes but they should not have to cut their appeal down to one point" My view is "Why add unnecessary padding to a winning point?"

You freely admit that your style is to hit them with the kitchen sink. Sometimes - usually where the OP doesn't really have an indisputable legal failure on their side - that can help, but sometimes a single sniper bullet, well aimed, will beat a massive barrage of shells that only muddy up the battleground.

I do agree with your remedial suggestions about educating POPLA, but please, that should be concentrated on the single point you have identified.

And if it works on the remedial appeal, why would it not have worked on the original one?

nigelbb

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Tell POPLA: there are no circumstances where a keeper can be liable if no NTK was issued. Ask for the case to be escalated to the Lead Adjudicator because this is vital and basic knowledge of the POFA, completely missed due to an assumption by the Assessor. It is also completely inconsistent with other POPLA appeals where no keeper can lose/has ever lost/can ever be held liable, where there is no NTK.

e.g. my own appeal to POPLA http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=70057858&postcount=1961

nigelbb

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I know we differ on the point of appeal lengths and your record on here is legendary, but you have written above "Yes but they should not have to cut their appeal down to one point" My view is "Why add unnecessary padding to a winning point?"

You freely admit that your style is to hit them with the kitchen sink. Sometimes - usually where the OP doesn't really have an indisputable legal failure on their side - that can help, but sometimes a single sniper bullet, well aimed, will beat a massive barrage of shells that only muddy up the battleground.

I do agree with your remedial suggestions about educating POPLA, but please, that should be concentrated on the single point you have identified.

And if it works on the remedial appeal, why would it not have worked on the original one?

I'm with GD here. I already posted on a couple of other threads today pointing out the danger of blatherng on about inconsequential or contentious appeal points so obscuring a single killer appeal point like "No NTK = No keeper liability" or "Not relevant land = No keeper liability".

It's all very well chucking in the kitchen sink in the hope that something will stick when the appeal is weak but the New POPLA assessors seem very poor at seeing the wood for the trees & simply cut & paste standard responses whenever they can. If 'No GPEOL' is used as an appeal point then they trot out a few paragraphs of BPA Ltd press release 'proving' that Beavis justifies a £100 parking 'fine'.

Sicsiksix

Coupon-mad wrote: »

This one takes the biscuit. What was the name of that clueless Assessor please?

Assessor Name: Carly Law

Thanks for taking the time to reply, I will construct a response to send over to POPLA stating the points you mention in the hope that it will be reviewed and overturned.

Coupon-mad

That Assessor needs to learn a bit about the POFA to merit that surname...

You could quote nigelbb's case as an example of the normal consistent understanding seen by POPLA for a few years, of the mandatory NTK requirement and show that in your case, this Assessor has made a fundamental mistake.

Coupon-mad

nigelbb wrote: »

It's all very well chucking in the kitchen sink in the hope that something will stick when the appeal is weak but the New POPLA assessors seem very poor at seeing the wood for the trees & simply cut & paste standard responses whenever they can. If 'No GPEOL' is used as an appeal point then they trot out a few paragraphs of BPA Ltd press release 'proving' that Beavis justifies a £100 parking 'fine'.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

My view is "Why add unnecessary padding to a winning point?"

You freely admit that your style is to hit them with the kitchen sink. Sometimes - usually where the OP doesn't really have an indisputable legal failure on their side - that can help, but sometimes a single sniper bullet, well aimed, will beat a massive barrage of shells that only muddy up the battleground.

I do agree with your remedial suggestions about educating POPLA, but please, that should be concentrated on the single point you have identified.

And if it works on the remedial appeal, why would it not have worked on the original one?

I take it all on board and I don't disagree. We all (most of us) have the same aims and support the BMPA ethos. We do need to amend advice and keep it fluid to try to stay one step ahead and keep winning at POPLA and fending off PPC World. As you know, as I mentioned it earlier elsewhere, I will be updating the NEWBIES thread to clear out the old POPLA examples when I get a mo.

So, we need to decide what merits a single point appeal and what doesn't.

'No NTK' should have been a slam dunk win so yep, that could be recommended as a single point POPLA appeal in the NEWBIES thread as long as the newbies know they can't use it if they let slip who was driving. And as long as they can spot what a NTK is...

'Not relevant land' - yes, only if absolutely certain the site in question is covered by bylaws or is owned/controlled by the LA (such as with Wing Parking and ALMOs).

nigelbb

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That Assessor needs to learn a bit about the POFA to merit that surname...

You could quote nigelbb's case as an example of the normal consistent understanding seen by POPLA for a few years, of the mandatory NTK requirement and show that in your case, this Assessor has made a fundamental mistake.

My successful appeal on 'No NTK' that I linked to was with New POPLA.

salmosalaris

It strikes me that a single point appeal on no NtK would have failed with this assessor as she has assessed that very point albeit incorrectly . Decisions like this strengthen the case for the kitchen sink surely ?
I wonder if POPLA are going to start adopting the line that responding to an NtD implies the appellant was driving ?

Coupon-mad

nigelbb wrote: »

My successful appeal on 'No NTK' that I linked to was with New POPLA.

Yep I remember and recognise the Assessor's name as a new one. The OP could use your one (complete with Assessor's name) as an example of the usual consistency which does go back years and has continued under new POPLA. As it should do, because there is no doubt a compliant NTK is mandatory.