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.
