CEL PCN

TRNC

Thank you both, I realised before starting (luckily!) that the BPA CoP has been updated and I have been quoting that. 
As for too many headings I am struggling a bit, as I go through the decisions page many have 9 or 10 headings. 

TRNC

I have uploaded a new POPLA, new section about the occupant of the vehicle purchasing items in store, removed a couple of other paragraphs and combined one as well. Edited the opening sentence. 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SP-VPJD-xTsXTNg319BVLm1BF2SEowW2wqlWlnuOdao/edit?usp=sharing

Coupon-mad

We wouldn't expect to see more than 3 or 4 POPLA points.  Most of those are not in the NEWBIES thread post #3 templates.

TRNC

Coupon-mad said:

We wouldn't expect to see more than 3 or 4 POPLA points.  Most of those are not in the NEWBIES thread post #3 templates.

Strange, most of the examples I have found all have more than 4 points. 
Do I just decide which not to use because they're are valid reasons and relate to the situation at the car park? 
I thought the longer the better?

I will edit and post again tomorrow. Thanks for the advice.

TRNC

Here is the link to my POPLA appeal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1saMuF9-2IxKQP-EP9AI1a3C-VF2jlkuq2ewD0ON8g5E/edit?usp=sharing

As requested I have removed most points which aren't in the NEWBIES thread post #3. Out of interest, why the need to remove those points which are still applicable to the incident? 

1505grandad

Some observations:-

" I contend that I, as the keeper, am not compelled to provide the identity of the driver, nor am I liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:"

I would suggest that paras in 1. give away who the driver is (THE occupant of the vehicle spent over £5.00 in store .................... they were only aware of this following the Notice to Keeper (NtK)).

".......there are often large vehicles and forklifts parked in these bays or working in front of these bays, as was the case on 09/09/2021 these signs are obscured......"  -  date typo

TRNC

1505grandad said:

Some observations:-

" I contend that I, as the keeper, am not compelled to provide the identity of the driver, nor am I liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:"

I would suggest that paras in 1. give away who the driver is (THE occupant of the vehicle spent over £5.00 in store .................... they were only aware of this following the Notice to Keeper (NtK)).

".......there are often large vehicles and forklifts parked in these bays or working in front of these bays, as was the case on 09/09/2021 these signs are obscured......"  -  date typo

Ok thank you. Sorry probably me being dim but I can't see what is wrong with the first part you quote and the bold "as the keeper"?

I could edit the second part to: The occupant of the vehicle spent over £5.00 in store and could have obtained a £1.00 parking refund, however, due to the unclear and illegible signage (which does not adhere to the BPA Code of Practice) they were not aware of this.
(The occupant and keeper aren't necessarily the same person). 
Date changed, thanks!

Coupon-mad

PEDANT MODE - please can you remove all repeats at the start, of ''I'' follow by a comma.  Stop splitting infinitives! 

Separating ''I'' from its verb, reads horribly which is what I was getting at, with my earlier reply.

TRNC

Coupon-mad said:

PEDANT MODE - please can you remove all repeats at the start, of ''I'' follow by a comma.  Stop splitting infinitives! 

Separating ''I'' from its verb, reads horribly which is what I was getting at, with my earlier reply.

Sure will do!

Any other thoughts on the content of the points etc? 

 If I am able to visit site I will take some photos and replace those screenshots from Google. 

Coupon-mad

This is as bad as a comma! 

I (the registered keeper of this vehicle) received

Please let the poor ''I'' see the verb 'received' next to it or I will self combust with frustration at this grammatical mauling of the English Language!