Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Used2BCabbyman on October 14, 2025, 04:39:00 pm

Title: Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: Used2BCabbyman on December 05, 2025, 04:46:54 pm

Was it ever in doubt???

The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.
If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.
If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.
Kind regards
POPLA Team


To everyone who got involved, thank you all, once again, for all your help. I've lost count of the invoices that I have overturned with your help, and that of Pepipoo previously, but we must be well into double figures by now!

Keep up the good work.   ;D

Title: Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: Used2BCabbyman on November 16, 2025, 02:24:27 pm

Thank you for your help.

I'll come back if and when ECP make their submission, or with a result, whichever is sooner.   :)

Title: Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: b789 on November 16, 2025, 02:09:05 pm

No reason to deny. Just send it.

Title: Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: Used2BCabbyman on November 16, 2025, 01:34:13 pm

 🤣🤣🤣

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?

Title: Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: b789 on November 15, 2025, 03:30:10 pm

A bit repetitive but good enough for a POPLA assessor who is quite possibly intellectually malnourished to understand.

Title: Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: Used2BCabbyman on November 15, 2025, 11:32:50 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.
https://www.gatcom.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Item7_Crawley-Draft-Submission-Local-Plan.pdf
https://crawley.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/PUB271702.pdf

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.

Title: Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: b789 on November 12, 2025, 04:09:19 am

Here is a link to a local government planning map you can annotate to evidence the official boundary of Gatwick airport:

https://crawley.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/PUB271702.pdf

Also a local planning document with an airport map showing the official boundary:

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.

Title: Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: DWMB2 on November 11, 2025, 09:44:49 pm

Quote from: Used2BCabbyman on November 11, 2025, 09:12:15 pm

it's a few years since I was advising the exact same cases on Pepipoo and

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'.

Title: Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: Used2BCabbyman on November 11, 2025, 09:12:15 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.

Title: Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: b789 on November 11, 2025, 06:25:47 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 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted) in particular.

Title: Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: Used2BCabbyman on November 11, 2025, 05:49:23 pm

I'm struggling to apply the byelaws to the Shell Garage:  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?

Title: Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: Used2BCabbyman on November 11, 2025, 04:53:58 pm

b789, thank you for taking the trouble to respond.  I will digest your comments and rewrite.

Title: Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: b789 on November 11, 2025, 02:05:08 pm

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:

• 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.

Title: Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: Used2BCabbyman on November 10, 2025, 06:03:41 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.

Title: Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: Used2BCabbyman on November 10, 2025, 04:25:06 pm

Quote from: InterCity125 on November 10, 2025, 04:10:34 pm

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.

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.

Title: Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: InterCity125 on November 10, 2025, 04:10:34 pm

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.

Title: Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: Used2BCabbyman on November 10, 2025, 03:23:21 pm

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 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
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

Title: Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: Used2BCabbyman on October 14, 2025, 06:44:02 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. :)

Title: Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: b789 on October 14, 2025, 05:53:02 pm

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.

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:

(https://i.ibb.co/sdQKDnTj/LGW-gatwick-boundary-copy.jpg)

Title: Re: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: jfollows on October 14, 2025, 05:22:34 pm

Is the petrol station within the boundaries of Gatwick Airport (https://www.gatwickairport.com/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-Gatwick-Library/default/dw5fa1fcde/images/Corporate-PDFs/Masterplan/Gatwick_Airport_Masterplan_2019.pdf has a map) and therefore subject to airport byelaws?

At a quick glance, it is.
EG 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.

Title: ECP Shell Gatwick - Alleged Overstay.
Post by: Used2BCabbyman on October 14, 2025, 04:39:00 pm

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? 

https://ibb.co/LhHq8VWj

https://ibb.co/bj00d5DR

https://maps.app.goo.gl/JnU63bM4Ey9yg5gB6