Show Posts - Used2BCabbyman

Was it ever in doubt???The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn.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 As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.Kind regardsPOPLA TeamTo everyone who got involved, thank you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.   

Quote from: roythebus on 17 Nov, 2025 13:15Maybe tapping the enquiry in the search bar will reveal some cases?Thanks Roy.  Tried that.  The only return was this thread!

Thank you for your help.I'll come back if and when ECP make their submission, or with a result, whichever is sooner.   

 🤣🤣🤣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?

Rather than clog up the private parking forum, I felt that my question would be more appreciated here.  I'm only being nosey; I have no tickets or issues that need resolving in connection with the below.I have been out of the loop for a few years but, I recall from my days on Pepipoo that there were a number of cases being prepared against VCS and their money trap on the approach roads at Liverpool John Lennon Airport.  I further seem to remember that one case may have been going quite high in the court appeals system. Can anybody tell me what has happened or direct me towards some reading please?

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 rejectyour appeal for the following reasons:• The Site is operated by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. ANPRcameras have captured an image of the vehicle registration mark XXXXXXX entering andleaving 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 at02:17:04 therefore was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.• Signage located throughout The Site clearly details the terms and conditions. On entry toprivate land, it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure all terms and conditions as detailedon 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 ByelawsThe 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 BreachECP 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.

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.

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?

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

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 rejectyour appeal for the following reasons:• The Site is operated by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. ANPRcameras have captured an image of the vehicle registration mark XXXXXXX entering andleaving 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 at02:17:04 therefore was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.• Signage located throughout The Site clearly details the terms and conditions. On entry toprivate land, it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure all terms and conditions as detailedon 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 ByelawsThe 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 BreachECP 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.

Quote from: InterCity125 on 10 Nov, 2025 16:10The 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.

Oh dear! Will ECP never learn? "10/11/25Our Ref: XXXXXXXXXXXUnique POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXXXXXXDear XXXXXXXThank 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/10/2025Vehicle Registration Mark: XXXXXX Time of Issue: 02:17:04The Site: Shell Petrol Station - Gatwick NorthBreach of Terms and Conditions:Your vehicle has overstayed the maximumtime period allowedAfter carefully reviewing the information you provided, Euro Car Parks (ECP) have decided to rejectyour appeal for the following reasons:• The Site is operated by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. ANPRcameras have captured an image of the vehicle registration mark XXXXXX entering andleaving 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 at02:17:04 therefore was parked longer than the maximum period allowed.• Signage located throughout The Site clearly details the terms and conditions. On entry toprivate land, it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure all terms and conditions as detailedon 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 Ł60.00:1. 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 Ł2.50 handling chargefor cheque processing) and post to Euro Car Parks Ltd, 30 Dorset Square, London, NW16QJ, 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 makepayment.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 LandAppeals) using the unique POPLA Reference code provided above. Please note, should you decideto appeal to POPLA, or if you appeal to POPLA and your appeal is subsequently rejected, the optionto 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 “TheDriver” can appeal to POPLA.If you decide to appeal to POPLA, you will need to visit the website, www.popla.co.uk where furtherdetails of how to appeal (either online or by downloading the relevant forms) can be found. If thedriver is unable to access the website, please use the contact us page athttps://www.popla.co.uk/contact. Please ensure that the POPLA Reference Number as noted above isquoted on all correspondence to POPLA. You have 28 days from the date of this letter to submit anappeal 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 anyappeals logged via POPLA.If you choose to ignore this letter, we will seek to recover the outstanding amount owed to us throughthe 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 yourappeal. 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!

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.

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/LhHq8VWjhttps://ibb.co/bj00d5DRhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/JnU63bM4Ey9yg5gB6

Cancelled.As expected, NCP collapsed immediately on seeing the 'not relevant land' argument.Thank you again for the assistance.