NCP Appeal - Revised NTK and signage

Moochover

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would do the above, definitely, because the BPA CoP expects extra signs in order to inform drivers familiar with the private land, about any new restrictions. Also take some carefully-angled photos and close ups of areas not well signed, usually who rows are able to be shown NOT signed, with careful photo angles!

Also show if the PDT machines are hidden in a far corner, that few drivers would see. Make your photo evidence damning!

Re the NCP NTK, you are correct, I take it back! They HAVE just improved their wording and that is a POFA one.

You are most likely to win on signage evidence, or NCP not showing 'landowner authority' to the satisfaction of POPLA. Even if not, no-one here PAYS NCP!

Please could you remove the link whilst I amend the image slightly please. I tried to detach the link at source but am unable to get to it via Dropbox due to my device and it's browser a the moment.

Much appreciated

Coupon-mad

Done!


Sorry, was distracted, following Transfer deadline day...!

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would do the above, definitely, because the BPA CoP expects extra signs in order to inform drivers familiar with the private land, about any new restrictions. Also take some carefully-angled photos and close ups of areas not well signed, usually who rows are able to be shown NOT signed, with careful photo angles!

Also show if the PDT machines are hidden in a far corner, that few drivers would see. Make your photo evidence damning!

Re the NCP NTK, you are correct, I take it back! They HAVE just improved their wording and that is a POFA one.

You are most likely to win on signage evidence, or NCP not showing 'landowner authority' to the satisfaction of POPLA. Even if not, no-one here PAYS NCP!

Just to add that NCP NTKs in fact have a flaw worth pointing out to POPLA:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73014427#Comment_73014427

Whilst NCP have correctly stated the 28 days timeline, the actual wording about how a keeper is liable/not liable, is seriously flawed and does not match the prescribed warning in 8(2)f of schedule 4, which is silent on 'making representations'.

This NTK wrongly tells the keeper that, under the POFA Sch 4, they will be liable 'unless they comply with the above' which is a list of three options. It includes ''making a representation'' as one of the three choices. So, the keeper just has to ''comply'' by making an appeal, and going by the instructions in that letter, they can reasonably understand they are then not liable.

NCP have muddled one 28 day term (appeal) with a completely different thing (the POFA liability wording) and in doing so, prejudice the registered keeper's understanding about liability. There can be no other interpretation of that NTK than to believe that a keeper can ''comply'' by ''making representations'' within 28 days and therefore, they will then not be liable.