06-02-2026, 07:58 PM
@TheParkingmeister, that's good news. There are a few POPLA assessors who appear willing to properly scrutinise the operator's evidence rather than simply assume everything asserted by the operator is correct.
Standing is often a surprisingly effective appeal point. Unfortunately, too many assessors will accept a generic witness statement at face value, without requiring production of the underlying contract, or will reason that because signs and cameras are present, the operator must have authority because no landowner would permit them to operate on their land otherwise.
Of course, neither proposition follows logically. The burden rests with the operator to prove it has the necessary authority. The existence of signs and cameras is not evidence of contractual standing, and a witness statement is only as good as the facts it actually proves.
It sounds as though Matthew Woodhouse correctly recognised that the operator had simply failed to discharge that burden.
Standing is often a surprisingly effective appeal point. Unfortunately, too many assessors will accept a generic witness statement at face value, without requiring production of the underlying contract, or will reason that because signs and cameras are present, the operator must have authority because no landowner would permit them to operate on their land otherwise.
Of course, neither proposition follows logically. The burden rests with the operator to prove it has the necessary authority. The existence of signs and cameras is not evidence of contractual standing, and a witness statement is only as good as the facts it actually proves.
It sounds as though Matthew Woodhouse correctly recognised that the operator had simply failed to discharge that burden.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
