06-02-2026, 11:50 PM
I just realised that was the assessor decision reasoning for the PPM appeals. All four were pretty much the same.
The reasoning for this PPS decision wasn't regarding the landowner authority, but the adequacy of signage. The assesor wrote: "This decision relates to PCN: 810897232 It is the operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that they have issued the PCN correctly. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: In this case, the appellant has challenged the signage. There is a sign visible in the warden’s photo, which appears to be a couple of vehicle lengths behind the lorry, and angled slightly away, so the driver wouldn’t necessarily realise that it was something they needed to approach and read. The site map indicates that there are two signs on the other side of the road from where the lorry is parked, though these signs can’t be seen in the warden’s photos, causing doubt as to whether the signs are actually in place. Due to the above, I consider that the operator has not sufficiently rebutted the appellant’s ground and shown that the terms were adequately brought to the motorist’s attention. Therefore I allow this appeal."
The reasoning for this PPS decision wasn't regarding the landowner authority, but the adequacy of signage. The assesor wrote: "This decision relates to PCN: 810897232 It is the operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that they have issued the PCN correctly. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: In this case, the appellant has challenged the signage. There is a sign visible in the warden’s photo, which appears to be a couple of vehicle lengths behind the lorry, and angled slightly away, so the driver wouldn’t necessarily realise that it was something they needed to approach and read. The site map indicates that there are two signs on the other side of the road from where the lorry is parked, though these signs can’t be seen in the warden’s photos, causing doubt as to whether the signs are actually in place. Due to the above, I consider that the operator has not sufficiently rebutted the appellant’s ground and shown that the terms were adequately brought to the motorist’s attention. Therefore I allow this appeal."
