DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 97722--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
DIR By: Used2BCabbyman
Date: November 11, 2025, 11:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm struggling to apply the byelaws to the Shell Garage:
HTML https://tinyurl.com/airport-byelaws
(I can verify the link, as I copied it.)
It looks like I can include:
Byelaw 5(3) Obstruction Except in an emergency, no person shall
leave or park a Vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in
excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of
waiting is restricted by a Sign.
Byelaw 6(1) Drive or place vehicle No person shall drive,
operate or place a Vehicle elsewhere than in a place provided
for the passage or accommodation of such a Vehicle.
Byelaw 2(3) Any other byelaw shall not exceed level 3 on the
standard scale.
I would interpret all of the above defining the statutory
control of parking, and penalties for breach, within the area
defined on the map.
Have I missed any other provisions?
#Post#: 97729--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
DIR By: b789
Date: November 11, 2025, 12:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Why on earth are you trying to "apply" the byelaws. All you need
to know is that the location is within the Gatwick Airport
byelaws boundary. It matters not one iota whether that land is
owned by Gatwick Airport or it was sold as a plot to another
entity. The only fact of note is that is land covered by statute
and therefore cannot be "relevant" for the purposes of PoFA.
In other words, if the driver is not identified, they cannot
pursue the Keeper for the liability of any alleged contravention
at the location.
If you really want to know what PoFA says about being able to
transfer liability form an unknown driver to the Keeper, have a
study of PoFA 2012, ¶3
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted<br
/>in particular.
#Post#: 97759--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
DIR By: Used2BCabbyman
Date: November 11, 2025, 3:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I know exactly what PoFA 2012 sched 4 para 3 says with respect
to 'relevant land.'
in your previous post, you told me to lead the POPLA Assessor
'by the nose.' Consequently, I was going to inform him that it
was not relevant land and the byelaws make provision for
penalties for contravention under scale 3. I needed to then
show how that contravention arises, and the fact that it does
not arise in such a manner to allow the RK to be liable under
PoFA. Perhaps you could kindly direct me towards a 'successful
non-ChatGP' opening paragraph because the one that I started
with appears to have been a 'successful ChatGP' submission. I
wasn't aware of the origin, merely that it had been successful.
I don't wish to appear belligerent but it's a few years since I
was advising the exact same cases on Pepipoo and, consequently,
I am out of practice. I'm sure that, with your help, we will be
able to chalk up a success for FTLA.
#Post#: 97764--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 11, 2025, 3:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Used2BCabbyman link ---
>
> it's a few years since I was advising the exact same cases on
Pepipoo and
>
--- End Quote ---
Thought your username looked familiar, welcome 'back'!
You tend not to need to get into the specifics of which clauses
within the byelaws relate to parking and in what sense, the part
it is sensible to make explicit is that byelaws are in effect on
the land, those byelaws include byelaws which govern parking,
and as such, it is not 'relevant land'.
#Post#: 97785--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
DIR By: b789
Date: November 11, 2025, 10:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a link to a local government planning map you can
annotate to evidence the official boundary of Gatwick airport:
HTML https://crawley.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/PUB271702.pdf
Also a local planning document with an airport map showing the
official boundary:
HTML https://www.gatcom.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Item7_Crawley-Draft-Submission-Local-Plan.pdf
If you Google “Gatwick local plan map” you can find a while load
of official publications that contain maps showing the airport
official boundary.
#Post#: 98233--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
DIR By: Used2BCabbyman
Date: November 15, 2025, 5:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you everyone for all your help so far. This is my latest
draft; how does it look please:
I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice as the registered
keeper of the vehicle.
II am not liable for this charge because, as will be seen from
the map below, the land in question, Shell Petrol Station lies
within the area subject to Gatwick Airport Byelaws. 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 as shown on the
map below, 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:
The links are to 1) the Crawley Draft Submission Local Plan and,
2) The Crawley 2030 Local Plan Map, both of which confirm the
boundaries shown on the above map.
HTML https://www.gatcom.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Item7_Crawley-Draft-Submission-Local-Plan.pdf<br
/>
HTML https://crawley.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/PUB271702.pdf<br
/>
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:
• 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.
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.
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 the point regarding ‘non-relevant land’ 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.
• ECP’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#: 98262--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
DIR By: b789
Date: November 15, 2025, 9:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A bit repetitive but good enough for a POPLA assessor who is
quite possibly intellectually malnourished to understand.
#Post#: 98371--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
DIR By: Used2BCabbyman
Date: November 16, 2025, 7:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
🤣🤣🤣
Yes, I thought that on my read through but couldn't be bothered
to go back and edit.
I presume there's no point in delaying it now? I can send it
straightaway?
#Post#: 98372--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
DIR By: b789
Date: November 16, 2025, 8:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No reason to deny. Just send it.
#Post#: 98374--------------------------------------------------
Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
DIR By: Used2BCabbyman
Date: November 16, 2025, 8:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your help.
I'll come back if and when ECP make their submission, or with a
result, whichever is sooner. :)
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page