DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 94049--------------------------------------------------
ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
DIR By: Used2BCabbyman
Date: October 14, 2025, 10:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As RK, I have received a PCN from Euro Car Park regarding a
parking overstay at the Shell Garage near Gatwick North
Terminal. Regrettably, being 80 miles away, photos of the signs
won't be possible and, unfortunately, there are no clear signs
on GSV. However, the sign at the entrance would appear not to
show the full terms of using the area to park.
The last time that I had to deal with one of these was back in
2018 when ECP generally rejected an initial appeal but a POPLA
appeal was successful by forensically dissecting PoFA and
showing where they were going wrong.
Has the legislation changed in the ensuing period? Are there
any examples of recently successful POPLA appeals?
HTML https://ibb.co/LhHq8VWj
HTML https://ibb.co/bj00d5DR
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/JnU63bM4Ey9yg5gB6
#Post#: 94057--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
DIR By: jfollows
Date: October 14, 2025, 11:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is the petrol station within the boundaries of Gatwick Airport
(
HTML https://www.gatwickairport.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-Gatwick-Library/default/dw5fa1fcde/images/Corporate-PDFs/Masterplan/Gatwick_Airport_Masterplan_2019.pdf<br
/>has a map) and therefore subject to airport byelaws?
At a quick glance, it is.
EG
HTML https://streetmap.co.uk/map?x=527775&y=142125&z=0&sv=rh60nx&st=2&pc=RH6+0NX&mapp=map&searchp=ids
If so, as long as the driver is not identified then PoFA 2012
can not be used to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
#Post#: 94063--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
DIR By: b789
Date: October 14, 2025, 11:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have you appealed yet? The Shell garage sits within the Gatwick
Airport boundary and is therefore not relevant land for the
purposes of PoFA. As long as the driver is not identified, they
cannot pursue the Keeper for the charge.
Easy one to deal with… as long as the unknown drivers identity
is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known
keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal
the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or
assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA as
the location is not relevant land, which means that if the
unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability
for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove
anything from it:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper. ECP cannot hold a registered
keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is
under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, ECP will
be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because
Gatwick Airport is not 'relevant land'.
>
> If Gatwick Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable
under Airport Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift
and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not
pleaded, it is also not legally possible because ECP is not the
Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never
attempts to be a penalty. It is created for ECP’s own profit (as
opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and
ECP has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the
driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
ECP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
If they reject, you can use the following map to prove the point
that the Shell garage sits within the Gatwick Airport boundary
and is therefore not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA:
HTML https://i.ibb.co/sdQKDnTj/LGW-gatwick-boundary-copy.jpg
#Post#: 94077--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
DIR By: Used2BCabbyman
Date: October 14, 2025, 12:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That is absolutely wonderful! It's even easier than I thought.
I'm quite adept against NCP at Gatwick, Apcoa at Heathrow and
various PPCs on railway property. I wasn't aware that this came
within the scope of the Gatwick Byelaws.
I know exactly how to deal with it now, then. :)
Thank you all. :)
#Post#: 97567--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
DIR By: Used2BCabbyman
Date: November 10, 2025, 9:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear! Will ECP never learn?
"10/11/25
Our Ref: XXXXXXXXXXX
Unique POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXXXXXX
Dear XXXXXXX
Thank you for your letter of appeal. The details of the Parking
Charge Notice are as follows:
Parking Charge Notice Number: XXXXXXXXXXX Date of
Issue:XX/10/2025
Vehicle Registration Mark: XXXXXX Time of Issue: 02:17:04
The Site: Shell Petrol Station - Gatwick North
Breach of Terms and Conditions:
Your vehicle has overstayed the maximum
time period allowed
After carefully reviewing the information you provided, Euro Car
Parks (ECP) have decided to reject
your appeal for the following reasons:
• The Site is operated by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition
(ANPR) system. ANPR
cameras have captured an image of the vehicle registration mark
XXXXXX entering and
leaving The Site and calculated the duration of stay.
• Parking at The Site is limited to 20 minutes. Your vehicle
entered at 01:31:39 and exited at
02:17:04 therefore was parked longer than the maximum period
allowed.
• Signage located throughout The Site clearly details the terms
and conditions. On entry to
private land, it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure
all terms and conditions as detailed
on the signage are adhered to.
The parking charge notice has been issued correctly and remains
payable.
Please use one of the following options below to make payment
for the amount of £60.00:
1. Online: By visiting
HTML https://www.eurocarparks.com/pay-a-parking-charge/
2. Phone: Use the automated telephone service 0203 553 4559.
3. Post: Make your cheque payable to Euro Car Parks Limited
(include a £2.50 handling charge
for cheque processing) and post to Euro Car Parks Ltd, 30 Dorset
Square, London, NW1
6QJ, quoting the PCN number on the reverse of the cheque.
The parking charge notice will be held for 14 days from the date
of this letter to allow time to make
payment.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.
You can make an appeal to the Independent Appeals Service, POPLA
(Parking on Private Land
Appeals) using the unique POPLA Reference code provided above.
Please note, should you decide
to appeal to POPLA, or if you appeal to POPLA and your appeal is
subsequently rejected, the option
to pay the discounted amount will no longer be available and the
Full Amount of the PCN will be due.
Please note - if the parking charge notice was issued in
Scotland and or Northern Ireland, only “The
Driver” can appeal to POPLA.
If you decide to appeal to POPLA, you will need to visit the
website, www.popla.co.uk where further
details of how to appeal (either online or by downloading the
relevant forms) can be found. If the
driver is unable to access the website, please use the contact
us page at
HTML https://www.popla.co.uk/contact.
Please ensure that the POPLA
Reference Number as noted above is
quoted on all correspondence to POPLA. You have 28 days from the
date of this letter to submit an
appeal to POPLA. If you appeal to POPLA, the parking charge
notice will be placed on hold.
Appeals may not be accepted if payment is made against the
Parking Charge Notice, including any
appeals logged via POPLA.
If you choose to ignore this letter, we will seek to recover the
outstanding amount owed to us through
the debt recovery process and procedure, this may lead to court
action against you.
By law, we are also required to inform you that the Ombudsman
Services (www.ombudsmanservices.
org) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that
would be able to assist with your
appeal. Please note, we have not chosen to participate in their
dispute resolution service and as such,
should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as
detailed above.
Yours sincerely"
I intend to compose a full POPLA appeal but, in the first
instance, would somebody be kind enough to point me to where I
can get a definitive, legible map showing the airport bounday,
please? The link, kindly provided by jfollows above, is not
clear enough to show the roads and boundary and b789's map is
only a proposal, from what I can ascertain in the online
documentation. Meantime, I'll start composing my 10 page
appeal! ;D
#Post#: 97574--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 10, 2025, 10:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The general advice is to keep POPLA appeals simple and short
(where airport land is concerned.)
It doesn't matter how many pages you write - the accessor will
not engage with any of your additional points once he / she sees
your 'relevant land' argument.
Nothing wrong with b789's map so far a I can see? Leave it to
the parking company to come up with an alternative map if they
can be bothered. Don't forget that it's their job to show that
the keeper is liable and they are not going to be able to do
that.
#Post#: 97585--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
DIR By: Used2BCabbyman
Date: November 10, 2025, 10:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> The general advice is to keep POPLA appeals simple and short
(where airport land is concerned.)
>
> It doesn't matter how many pages you write - the accessor will
not engage with any of your additional points once he / she sees
your 'relevant land' argument.
>
> Nothing wrong with b789's map so far a I can see? Leave it to
the parking company to come up with an alternative map if they
can be bothered. Don't forget that it's their job to show that
the keeper is liable and they are not going to be able to do
that.
>
--- End Quote ---
OK. Thank you. Things have changed somewhat since I was last
involved on Pepipoo then. In those days (possible 10 years
ago!), it was encouraged to throw the kitchen sink in to
discourage the PPC from putting their arguments forward.
I'll draft something and put it on here for comment. Thank you
for your help.
#Post#: 97595--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
DIR By: Used2BCabbyman
Date: November 10, 2025, 12:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
How does this look, please?
I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice as the registered
keeper of the vehicle. I am under no legal obligation to
identify the driver to a private parking company, and I have not
done so. This appeal is made solely in my capacity as Keeper.
This appeal is made on the basis that Euro Car Parks Ltd are
attempting to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
in a location where it does not apply. The land in question is
not “relevant land” as defined in PoFA Schedule 4. Therefore,
ECP has no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper.
The vehicle was parked at Shell Petrol Station, Gatwick North,
which lies within the boundary of Gatwick Airport. This is not a
speculative assumption — it is a matter of fact. I now submit
with this appeal a map produced by Gatwick Airport that clearly
shows the official airport boundary. I have marked on this map
the location of Shell Petrol Station, which falls squarely
within the blue boundary line of Gatwick Airport.
Airport map: [b789's map inserted here.]
The test is whether statutory provisions apply to the land.
Where a parcel of land lies within the boundary of an airport to
which byelaws apply — such as Gatwick Airport — it is by
definition under statutory control and therefore excluded from
the definition of “relevant land” in Schedule 4 of PoFA. Unless
the Secretary of State has formally revoked the application of
the byelaws to this specific parcel of land (which there is no
evidence has occurred), then the land cannot lawfully be treated
as relevant land. This remains true even if the land is used by
a private company, such as Euro Car Parks, or contains
commercial outlets such as Shell.
I first raised this point directly with ECP in my original
appeal. In response, they issued a generic rejection stating:
“After carefully reviewing the information you provided, Euro
Car Parks (ECP) have decided to reject
your appeal for the following reasons:
• The Site is operated by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition
(ANPR) system. ANPR
cameras have captured an image of the vehicle registration mark
XXXXXXX entering and
leaving The Site and calculated the duration of stay.
• Parking at The Site is limited to 20 minutes. Your vehicle
entered at 01:31:39 and exited at
02:17:04 therefore was parked longer than the maximum period
allowed.
• Signage located throughout The Site clearly details the terms
and conditions. On entry to
private land, it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure
all terms and conditions as detailed
on the signage are adhered to.
The parking charge notice has been issued correctly and remains
payable..”
This response totally ignores my point and indicates that my
appeal was not properly considered before their generic
rejection.
1. Shell Petrol Station Falls Under Gatwick Airport Byelaws
The map now submitted is produced by Gatwick Airport and shows
the area in question within the airport’s official boundary.
Gatwick Airport is governed by Airport Byelaws. Land subject to
statutory control is not “relevant land” under PoFA. Therefore,
PoFA Keeper Liability cannot apply at Shell Petrol Station.
2. “Private Land” Does NOT Mean “Relevant Land”
ECP appear to believe that all private land is automatically
“relevant land.” This is wrong. Schedule 4 of PoFA specifically
excludes land subject to statutory control, regardless of
whether it is privately owned. For example, train station car
parks are also private land, but are not “relevant land” under
PoFA because they fall under Railway Byelaws. The same principle
applies to Shell Petrol Station due to Airport Byelaws.
3. ECP Is in Breach of the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP)
By issuing a Notice to Keeper that falsely asserts Keeper
Liability under PoFA, ECP is in breach of the PPSCoP Section
8.1.1(d), which states:
“The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its
design and/or language states the keeper is liable under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held
liable.”
ECP has knowingly issued a misleading notice, purporting to hold
the registered keeper liable in a location where this is not
legally possible.
4. Misuse of DVLA Data – KADOE Breach
ECP is misusing Keeper data obtained from the DVLA by using it
to assert a legal position that is invalid. PoFA does not apply
at Shell Petrol Station, yet the NtK sent by ECP falsely states
that the Keeper will be liable if the driver is not named. This
misuse of DVLA data is a breach of the KADOE agreement and will
be reported.
ECP entirely ignore the issue of land status. Their response
merely restated signage and payment terms, and made no effort to
address the critical point: that the land is not relevant land
under PoFA, and Keeper Liability does not apply.
It is the operator’s burden to demonstrate that the site is
relevant land. They have failed to do so. They have not rebutted
the airport boundary map. They have not provided any evidence
from the landowner, the airport authority, or the Secretary of
State, to show that statutory control does not apply. They have
not met the legal threshold.
Conclusion
• The land in question is under statutory control and not
“relevant land.”
• ECP cannot rely on PoFA Schedule 4.
• The Keeper is not liable.
• The NtK is misleading and non-compliant with both PoFA and the
PPSCoP.
• MET’s conduct raises further concerns regarding KADOE misuse
and must be brought to the attention of the relevant
authorities.
I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal.
#Post#: 97684--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
DIR By: b789
Date: November 11, 2025, 8:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, if you want to rely on ChatGPT. The main thrust of the POPLA
appeal must be to lead the moronic POPLA assessor by the nose to
the logical conclusion.
In this case, the very first thing the PIOPLA assessor must
ascertain, is whether the Keeper can be liable if the driver is
not identified. Have a search of some other POPLA decisions and
see how the assessors frame their reasoning.
Before any alleged contravention can be considered, is the
person being pursued liable or not. If they are not liable, then
everything else is irrelevant.
So, frame your POPLA appeal on that basis.
Also, it would be good if we could get a look at their contract
with the landowner, so put them to strict proof of a
contemporaneous contract flowing from the landowner. Use the
following wording for that section:
--- Quote ---
> I require strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or
lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to
manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own
name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14
of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets
out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before
any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
>
> In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to
have in place written confirmation from the landowner which
includes:
>
> [indent]• the identity of the landowner,
> • a boundary map of the land to be managed,
> • applicable byelaws,
> • the duration and scope of authority granted,
> • detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific
permissions or exemptions,
> • the means of issuing PCNs,
> • responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising
consents,
> • and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under
the Code.[/indent]
>
> These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons,
with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties
to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing
clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 97708--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
DIR By: Used2BCabbyman
Date: November 11, 2025, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
b789, thank you for taking the trouble to respond. I will
digest your comments and rewrite.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page