Waiting PCN private area help needed on popla appeal

JeffBezos

KeithP wrote: »

One hundred and forty characters gained by deleting the four occurrences of 'Thus, my appeal should be upheld''.

Thanks! I will remove those for sure.

Coupon-mad

Don't write in full sentences.

e.g.

Park Watch first bullet point referencing image (Ev1A) is FALSE evidence.
The operator is attempting to mislead POPLA. The wording on (Ev1A) is a dishonest fabrication. The sign (Ev1A) does NOT exist in the area. PW own evidence provides images of the actual signage on site (Ev5A) (Ev5B) These correspond with my appeal images (Fig.14) (Fig.12).
I believe such a blatant attempt to deceive POPLA should be grounds to uphold my appeal.

becomes

Image Ev1A is FALSE evidence, a blatant attempt to mislead POPLA. The wording on sign Ev1A does NOT exist in the area. PW own evidence shows actual signage on site: Ev5A & Ev5B, matching my appeal images Fig.14 & Fig.12.

The brackets in themselves took up a lot of characters!

Redx

JeffBezos wrote: »

Image Ev1A is FALSE evidence, a blatant attempt to mislead POPLA. The wording on sign Ev1A does NOT exist in the area. PW own evidence shows actual signage on site: Ev5A & Ev5B, matching my appeal images Fig.14 & Fig.12

Appeal point 2. (BPA’s CoP Appendix points (a, b, c, d, e, f, g,) - not been challenged. PW response (point 8) implies that there is an entrance sign in operation. (Ev5A) (Ev5B) PW own evidence shows only the wall signage, located WELL within the area. My appeal images (Fig.12 Fig.5 and Fig.4) prove beyond doubt, NO compliant entrance signs are in operation

Appeal Point 2. Specific note to Point c) (above) PW Bullet Point 14 own admission states NON- compliance with BPA’s CoP Appendix B (c) above)

Appeal Point 1. section: ‘Consider A reasonable grace period which must be applied for the time taken to:’ (subsequent bullet Points) have not been challenged, (no arguments have been given to refute the grace period required)

Appeal Point 1. Forbidding Signage: (Re- PW - Bullet Point 10) PW has accepted that no contract was ever offered, meaning no charge can be issued as no contract was breached. POPLA cannot rule that a failure to offer a contract means a contract was offered. PW has accepted there was no offer, and so no contract.

Appeal Point 4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority Operators response is (Ev2) 27/02/13 New ownership of the shopping centre began in 2015, rendering (Ev2) an out of date document. This falls far short of the requirements detailed in section 4

All points below have not been challenged by the operator and have thus been accepted.

Appeal Point 1. (CoP 13.1)
Appeal Point 1. (K Reynolds BPA guidance)
Appeal Point 1. (a.b.c.d.e.)
Appeal point 2. (CoP 18.2) initial points (a.b.c.d.)
Appeal Point 3. BPA’s CoP (18.10) points: (a.b.c.d.e.)
Appeal Point 3. BPA CoP (18.3) points: (a.b.c.d)
Appeal Point 3. (Old Signage still in use) Incl. Fig.29

a few edits above, try to shorten and adapt that as CM says as its a character count of 2065


now edited with the CM sugegstion above too (at 1946 characters)


I removed full stops as well etc

Coupon-mad

Appeal Point 1.

could become, throughout:

Appeal #1.

KeithP

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Don't write in full sentences.

e.g.

{438 characters}

becomes

{221 characters}

The brackets in themselves took up a lot of characters!

Over 200 characters saved there. Easy.

JeffBezos

Coupon-mad wrote: »

could become, throughout:

awesome help thanks!

JeffBezos

Image Ev1A is FALSE evidence, a blatant attempt to mislead POPLA. The wording on sign Ev1A does NOT exist in the area. PW own evidence shows actual signage on site: Ev5A & Ev5B, matching my appeal images Fig.14 & Fig.12

Appeal point 2. (BPA’s CoP Appendix points (a, b, c, d, e, f, g,) - not been challenged. PW response (point 8) implies that there is an entrance sign in operation. (Ev5A) (Ev5B) PW own evidence shows only the wall signage, located WELL within the area. My appeal images (Fig.12 Fig.5 and Fig.4) prove beyond doubt, NO compliant entrance signs are in operation

Appeal Point 2. Specific note to Point c) (above) PW Bullet Point 14 own admission states NON- compliance with BPA’s CoP Appendix B (c) above)

Appeal Point 1. section: ‘Consider A reasonable grace period which must be applied for the time taken to:’ (subsequent bullet Points) have not been challenged, (no arguments have been given to refute the grace period required)

Appeal Point 1. Forbidding Signage: (Re- PW - Bullet Point 10) PW has accepted that no contract was ever offered, meaning no charge can be issued as no contract was breached. POPLA cannot rule that a failure to offer a contract means a contract was offered. PW has accepted there was no offer, and so no contract.

Appeal Point 4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority Operators response is (Ev2) 27/02/13 New ownership of the shopping centre began in 2015, rendering (Ev2) an out of date document. This falls far short of the requirements detailed in section 4

All points below have not been challenged by the operator and have thus been accepted.

Appeal Point 1. (CoP 13.1)
Appeal Point 1. (K Reynolds BPA guidance)
Appeal Point 1. (a.b.c.d.e.)
Appeal point 2. (CoP 18.2) initial points (a.b.c.d.)
Appeal Point 3. BPA’s CoP (18.10) points: (a.b.c.d.e.)
Appeal Point 3. BPA CoP (18.3) points: (a.b.c.d)
Appeal Point 3. (Old Signage still in use) Incl. Fig.29

---

Is that all below 2000?

Many thanks for confirming (and helping)

KeithP

That's 1,921 characters including spaces. Well done.

Umkomaas

1920 characters. Room for a 'Love and Kisses' valediction!

JeffBezos

I'm aware I have the best help available on this site right now, and I really appreciate every second of your time.

In your considered (expert) opinions - what would you consider the chances of popla upholding this (joint help) rebuttal ? (I have zero experience obviously)