Popla appeal of one parking solution pcn stanmer Park

KeithP

Madpye wrote: »

Hi
They’ve replied to my appeal... they haven’t yet reached an outcome but are giving me 7days to make 2000 words worth of comments

Slight correction needed there... it's 2000 characters, not words.

Madpye

Yeah whatever... but is it even worth it?! They’ve refuted most of what I’ve said... how can I respond.

waamo

Go through it and refute every point you can. Without seeing what they've said it's difficult to give ideas.

They are going to claim they did everything correctly however they rarely do. You only have to win on one point and that's it.

Check very carefully for POFA compliance. They often get it wrong.

Madpye

Thank you waamo... the problem is I don’t know what I’m doing! Going through every point and re-refuting it is all very well if you know what you’re looking for ! How about keeper liability? I thought that was an easier one to refute?

waamo

Madpye wrote: »

Thank you waamo... the problem is I don’t know what I’m doing! Going through every point and re-refuting it is all very well if you know what you’re looking for ! How about keeper liability? I thought that was an easier one to refute?

Have they demonstrated it's not council land? Have they shown the landowner contract? If they have who is the landowner?

If it's council land there is no keeper liability.

Madpye

It says ... as I state that as the land is owned by the council it is not subject to POFA. The land may be owned by the council, however it is privately owned and is not part of the public highway or subject to the Road Traffic Act.
It also says there is no landowner authority, the contract is attached by them.

KeithP

Madpye wrote: »

Yeah whatever... but is it even worth it?! They’ve refuted most of what I’ve said... how can I respond.

So glad I was able to help.

Good luck... with that attitude, you'll need it.

waamo

Madpye wrote: »

It says ... as I state that as the land is owned by the council it is not subject to POFA. The land may be owned by the council, however it is privately owned and is not part of the public highway or subject to the Road Traffic Act.
It also says there is no landowner authority, the contract is attached by them.

They are talking utter rubbish. Contradictory rubbish at that. Read it. It makes no sense. It's gibberish.

Madpye

Yes that’s what I thought! But am also a bit swamped. Just bullies. Should I say in my comments that I refer them back to my initial appeal? I’m not going to be able to say much in 2000 CHARACTERS...or should I briefly mention certain points? Really appreciate your helpful advice.

Madpye

Thanks for the really helpful advice