If something is likely to win at POPLA it would be mad not to argue it.
I personally have little experience and less interest in what arguments are currently favoured by POPLA assessors, but for the vast majority of OPs, if trying to get the landowner/occupier to intervene doesn't work, a strong POPLA appeal is their best chance at the easiest win, regardless of what legal merit the argument has.
In law (as in if it goes to court), whether or not a particular statutory requirement is "mandatory" or "merely directory" is a matter for the courts to decide. Unless and until there is binding case law on the point, it will be up to individual courts to decide.
In Pope v Clarke the Divisional Court found that whilst the requirement to serve a NIP within the 14 days was mandatory, the required details were merely directory - if the recipient was not disadvantaged by an error, the NIP was not invalidated. This decision applies to NIPs required by what is now s. 1 RTOA 1988, and not necessarily to other seemingly similar requirements, but I challenge anyone who asserts that the requirements of Schedule 4 as to the content of the notice must be strictly adhered to, on the grounds that they say so, to distinguish the judgment in Pope v Clarke using the language of the statute or some binding or persuasive authority (other than they themselves posting the word "strict" in bold).
<mod hat on>
Anyone who claims that the literal interpretation of a given statutory provision is the only interpretation (unless it is so well worded that there is no other viable interpretation) without a binding authority is talking bollox. Much like the proverbial broken clock, they might be right twice a day - a court might well adopt the same interpretation - or it might not.
I have better things to do with my time than tidying up spouted bollox. It is far simpler to delete the post, or the poster.
</>
