Shell Gatwick North

windsmurf

Hi,
Received a notice to keeper from ECP after the driver of my vehicle outstayed the 20 minute limit at Shell Petrol station, Gatwick. They were unaware that there is a time limit and stayed for approximately 45 minutes.

Standard appeal letter from the forum was submitted to ECP and have received a rejection including POPLA appeal code. Appeal letter is being developed with help of this forum and will follow up in due course for a polish.

In parallel, I submitted a complaint to Shell as follows (excuse lack of images)

Dear Mr XXX
Re Parking Charge REF: XXXXXX
Thank you for your timely response to my email. Concerning the requested details:
Drivers Visit: X/7/18. Arrival time (according to supplied ANPR data: XXXXX
Vehicle Reg: XXXXXXX
See below (Shell requested details)

Driver arrived at the garage prior to collecting a passenger from Gatwick airport. The driver entered the garage and purchased some snacks and a drink prior to waiting in the car.
Upon entering the garage, the driver did not see any signs indicating that there was a maximum stay period applied.
As you can see in the image below, the signs at the entrance are far smaller than any of the surrounding promotional signs, and are thus impossible to read without parking in a busy entrance.
<IMAGE HERE>

Given vehicles are entering the garage from a fast and busy road, I would propose that this is in breach of British Parking Association AOS code of practice, clause 18.2, and Appendix B which stipulates that “The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this.”
The entrance sign also appears to apply to the section of road off to the left of the garage, and not the actual garage itself. It is unclear that this sign applies to the garage itself.
Given the lack of prominence of the above sign, I would suggest that the majority of Shell customers are entirely unaware that parking is time limited, and this exposes them unfairly to the predatory actions of ECP - please see my previous email for descriptions applied to such firms by both members of parliament and BBC watchdog.
I would like to draw your attention to the time of arrival noted above, and the following zoomed in image of the previous sign:

<IMAGE 2 - SHOWING NO LIGHTS>

Noting the time of arrival at <NIGHTTIME>, you will observe that there is no lighting provided whatsoever to illuminate the sign describing parking restrictions, thus making it entirely unreadable when entering the garage in the dark (as in this case). This problem is amplified by the bright lighting installed in the forecourt to the right, which is where the drivers attention is focused as they enter the garage, turning off a busy and fast road and looking for pumps / spaces.
With consideration for the above, I politely request that you:
Contact ECP in order to expunge this parking “charge”, reference: XXXXXXXXX
Ensure that all of your retail outlets display parking restrictions in a clear manner such that your clients are not at the mercy of private parking companies.
Reconsider your relationship with private parking companies altogether, as your loyal customers deserve to be treated in a respectful manner as befits a company of Shell’s reputation, rather than being preyed upon by a bunch of scammers.

Yours Sincerely
XXXX
--
I received the following response from Shell:

Dear Mr XXXXX,

Further to my email of the XXth August 2018, I have now completed my investigation regarding the parking charge notice that was issued for your driver’s visit at Shell Gatwick North

I have investigated your complaint and discussed with our car parking service provider, Euro Car Parks (ECP). ECP are member of the main regulatory body, the British Car Parking Association, who have strict rules that its members must adhere to. This service station has had a history of people parking and waiting for friends and family to arrive at the airport and thus not allowing other customers the opportunity to park and visit the shop. We obviously want to give a consistent experience for all of our customers, not just the few, so in 2015 we took the decision to introduce clear signage at the station indicating that there was a 20-minute maximum wait time. The signs also state that a driver would face a fine of up to £100 if they went over that time limit.

There are 22 signages on the forecourt and the parking area informing our customers as such. At night, 8 of these signages mounted by light poles are lit up and the contents of the signs remain readable for customers to be informed of the station’s parking policy. The other signages, although not mounted by light poles, were made with red text that will clearly be seen under bright yellow backdrop.

We take Health & Safety very seriously in Shell and customers having enough time to consume their goods was a concern we took into account. The 20 minutes time frame was decided upon following a series of tests on the actual amount of time it would take a customer buying a hot drink and hot food to consume either in the shop or sat in their car before getting back onto the road. We obviously cannot control whether customers choose to do this or not but feel we have allowed adequate time for them to choose to consume on the premises.

I understand that you may not be happy with our response and I am truly sorry about that. I hope we have addressed your concerns regarding the policy at our service stations.

Thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to my attention and we appreciate the opportunity to address your concern.
Yours sincerely,
XXX

So, onto my question.
As well as pursuing the POPLA appeal, any thoughts on how best/if to follow up with Shell? They have stated that ECP comply with BPA code of practice, yet fail to accept the premise that they have failed to comply with specific conditions of that code!

Incidentally, of the 22 signs mentioned above, I believe that many are in a seperate car park off to the side of the garage that I understand was closed off and locked at that time. They was no indication that this applied to vehicles remaining on the forecourt.

Feedback and suggestions most welcome.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

I would let that complaint go, and just copy another Euro Shell POPLA or Euro Gatwick POPLA appeal from another recent thread, by searching the forum for those keywords.

Show us your draft and we will help.

Guys_Dad

" The signs also state that a driver would face a fine of up to £100 if they went over that time limit."

Do they actually use the F word? If so, then breach of CoP I believe.

windsmurf

Okay here's a first draft - obviously largely borrowed.
All feedback / recommendations most welcome.
Thanks
-STATEMENT ON APPEAL AS RK NOT DRIVER-

1. SIGNAGE
2. BPA CODE OF PRACTICE,NON COMPLIANCE TO GUIDELINES
3. THE OPERATOR HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO IT IS PURSUING IS IN FACT THE DRIVER WHO MAY HAVE BEEN POTENTIALLY LIABLE FOR THE CHARGE.
4. LAND OWNER AUTHORITY
5. OBSERVATION POINTS
6. GRACE PERIOD
7. NO EVIDENCE OF PERIOD PARKED
8. THE ANPR SYSTEM IS NEITHER RELIABLE NOR ACCURATE.
1. SIGNAGE
The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
These signs are unremarkable, concealed from the road by much more prominent flag/banner adverts which are 3 times the height of a car and would certainly completely obscure any sign, especially as Euro Car Park Signs are generally yellow which is the same colour as the shell signs, so no driver would look twice at a yellow sign behind some flags in a Shell petrol garage.
There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.
In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

DELETED LINK

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.


Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

DELETED LINK
s further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

DELETED LINK

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.


This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

DELETED LINK

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract.
The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

I further draw your attention to the stated time of arrival noted above, and the following image showing the garage entrance

Noting the time of arrival at 2218 (i.e. at night time), you will observe that there is no lighting provided whatsoever to illuminate the sign describing parking restrictions, thus making it entirely unreadable when entering the garage in the dark (as in this case). This problem is amplified by the bright lighting installed in the forecourt to the right, which is where the drivers attention is focused as they enter the garage, turning off a busy and fast road and looking for pumps.
The operator may further refer to the number of signs present within this petrol station stating terms and conditions. I request that the operator confirm exactly where those signs are positioned between the entrance and the pumps, and between the pumps and the garage building, and would challenge that any signs located in the zone marked A in the image below are irrelevant as this car park area was closed off my a barrier at the time of the drivers visit. This adds further confusion as any signs at the entrance relating to charges, which would appear to be in relation to that car park rather than use of the forecourt.





So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.



2. BPA CODE OF PRACTICE - NON-COMPLIANCE TO GUIDELINES

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that: "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

The parking charge notice in question contains two photographs of the vehicle number plate. They do they clearly show the vehicle entering or leaving the car park as required in the BPA Code of practice. The images may have also been cropped and I invite ECP to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images clearly showing the vehicle entering and leaving the car park. Should the images provided not clearly show the surrounding environment to recognisably be the garage in question, I would propose that there is no evidience that supports these images being at this location, and further, this support the previous statement that there is insufficient lighting on site to read any unlit signs notifying the motorist of terms..



3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.


In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

4.NO EVIDENCE OF LANDOWNER AUTHORITY
- the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Any such contract provided must include dates for both contract initiation AND contract end date.. Should the contract be open-ended I challenge that the contract is in-fact invalid

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).



Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

5. OBSERVATION POINTS
I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's First Annual POPLA Report 2013: "It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it."

Given the entry to this garage is from a main road at the UK’s second busiest airport, it seems unreasonable to expect drivers to be able to read small print. Further, the tarmac around the sign is painted yellow and says no parking, thus making in impossible to stop and read the smallprint.

6.GRACE PERIOD

As per section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice: 'You should allow the driver a reasonable 'grace period' in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.' Therefore, if a driver stops for a short period of time to read a sign, they must have the opportunity to leave and not accept the terms of an alleged contract.


The total time spent by the car past the point of ANPR control is NOT the same as the period parked.It is also true that waiting in a queue for a petrol pump to become free,filling up your vehicle,using the toilet,browsing the shop and paying for goods is time included and recorded on the ANPR and not actual time a vehicle is parked in the separate car park in the spaces provided.

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

Kelvin continues: “In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator’s own rules. If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.”

7.NO EVIDENCE OF PERIOD PARKED.

The Notice to keeper clearly states the vehicle was parked during the relevant period. PoFA2012 Sched 4 Para 9 refers at numerous times to the period of parking. By virtue of the nature of a ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, ECP are not able to definitively state the period of parking. Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA code of practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked longer than the time allowed PLUS the mandatory grace periods. These are a minimum of 10 minutes to leave the car park and a similar period to cover the period after the vehicle parks, finds signage, reads the signage and decides whether to accept or reject the terms offered within. The alleged overstay does not meet the binding code of practice. There is no evidence that the vehicle was ‘parked’ for the period stated.

8.THE ANPR SYSTEM IS NEITHER RELIABLE NOR ACCURATE.

The ECP evidence shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question. To capture a vehicle entering Shell Gatwick car park and actually crossing the boundary into the land in question, it would appear that the only conceivable location for a camera would be directly across the road from the entrance therefore outside the car park and taken from public land.

In any case it is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival in moving traffic. If they in fact offered a pay and display system which the driver can only access after parking, and which is when the actual action and period of parking commences. i.e. when the vehicle is stationary, and when the clock should start from. The exit photo image of the rear number plate cannot be evidence of actual 'parking time' at all, and has not been shown to relate to the same parking event.

Additionally you cannot discount that the driver may have driven in and out on two separate occasions both within the allowable grace period. The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website; DELETED LINK

The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use. Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...'

Additionally under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require ECP to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. As the parking charge is founded entirely on 2 photos of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (not shown within the photographic images), it is vital that ECP produces evidence in response to these points.

ADD STATEMENT RE SERVERS, DELAYS ON WIFI ETC. (REDACTED DUE TO CHARACTER LIMIT)

Coupon-mad

Bump for others to comment on Sunday...please...no time now.

windsmurf

Bump - any suggestions welcome?

Thanks!

windsmurf

I've now received my "evidence" pack and have 7 days to respond.

Only had a skim through but so far picked up the following:

1) Appears that ECP have added a choice statement to my appeal letter underneath my signature, stating (with detail redacted):

"I am the Registered Keeper
DD/MM/2018 HH:MM"

Isn't this fraud!?

2) Signage
- Operator has provided the detailed map showing location of signs and verified that there are no signs visible from the pump forecourt next to the pumps.They are only in segregated parking.

- I believe they have demonstrated that signs outside of the segregated parking area are not lit. Otherwise, lots of lovely photo's taken in broad daylight, or the lit signs that were nowhere near the parking area.

3) Contract: Refused to provide full contract as it contains "commercially sensitive information." They appear to have provided an Appendix, albeit signed.

4) ECP have provided images showing a license plate and shadows of a car - nothing that proves where that image was taken (no background recognizable as the garage in question).

5) ECP state "All vehicle registration numbers are then matched
against the data produced by the various means of paying for parking and a list of registration
numbers where no payment has been made or where the motorist has stayed longer than the
period paid is produced." There was no means of paying for parking provided!

Any suggestions on the best way to post their evidence points on the forum for feedback? I note I only get 2000 characters...

Thanks in advance
WS

Coupon-mad

1) Appears that ECP have added a choice statement to my appeal letter underneath my signature, stating (with detail redacted):

"I am the Registered Keeper
DD/MM/2018 HH:MM"

Isn't this fraud!?

No, it's OK. That will be taken from their drop-down menu you clicked 'I am the registered keeper'. I've used that site and there is a drop down you will have clicked, which is fine.

Your other points are all great, well worth saying. Just put that in as you told us, in short bullet points like in your post, it should be under 2000 characters if you remove #1.

windsmurf

First attempt below, I have some edits to make to hit 2000 characters.
Before I start trimming elements of each section, are any of the sections completely irrelevant? GDPR? ANPR time accuracy? NAAS Compliance?

As ever, feedback most welcome, especially as this is all my own and no copy paste for a change! I've left one easy edit in for your amusement - see if you can spot it!
Thanks
WS
---
All references below refer to Pages (P) and timestamps XX:YY:ZZ as applicable.

Regardless of POFA 2012, ECP have continually failed to comply with requirements of GDPR which obligates the data processor to have auditable evidence of a person having given their express consent for the processing of their information in this manner, removing the ability to rely on consent given by silence. Contrary to article 13, no privacy information was provided to myself as RK at the time of collection (the registration being captured by camera and stored in a database). ECP signage (P11) does not inform the driver how their data will be processed. Further, as RK I have not consented to my personal data being used in this manner. My letter (P8) demanded that my details are removed from their system.

Above is illegal and contrary to BPA-COP clause 2.4 which states “All AOS members must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses.”

Signage
-Map (P22) shows location of signs. “No parking” signs mark the perimeter of the forecourt. 18 “Max stay” signs are located in seperate car parks either side of the forecourt. This map verifies RK’s assertion that no signs are visible from within the forecourt area where vehicle was located, see vehicle parked alongside shop in image 15:40:41 and 25:42:02 far left. Signs also appear to apply to the car parks and not the forecourt or they would have been installed here as well.
15:40:10 proves entrance sign is unlit and it is not clear if sign related to traffic passing to right or left of the bollarded island.Contrary to BPA-COP 18.2. Sign disproportionately small compared to nearby signage (see my evidence)
P29 shows lit signs. These are located in segregated car park shown in 15:41:37 and irrelevant as barrier was closed.

Contract
ECP have breached their contract with the landowner. P20, Clause 2 “requires ECP to comply with all aspects of COP.” 2 major breaches are identified above. As ECP refuse to provide the full contract other breaches presumably exist.
Clause 4 requires signs to comply with the COP. Entrance sign does not.

ANPR
P12 In no way do the images provided prove that they were taken at the location in question.
P13 Item 6 states “data produced”, emphasizing breach of GDPR.
ECP statement that “cameras are Police NAAS compliant” is misleading. NAAS standard for required accuracy relates to each cameras capability to consistently identify a registration number. That this is my plate is not disputed. NAAS standards do not specify the required accuracy for the date/time system attributed to an individual camera. Nor do they confirm that the times are accurately synchronized across entrance and exit devices. An ANPR system could be 100% accurate according to NAAS standards and have completely the wrong time or date applied to it.

The NAAS standard does include firearms notifications which is useful information for a PPC.

P3 - ECP state that “All vehicle registration numbers are then matched against the data produced by the various means of paying for parking and a list of registration numbers where no payment has been made or where the motorist has stayed longer than the period paid is produced.” ECP provided no means by which the driver could pay for parking, so by definition driver was unable to outstay the period paid for.

Coupon-mad

Before I start trimming elements of each section, are any of the sections completely irrelevant? GDPR? ANPR time accuracy? NAAS Compliance?

I'd say they are all irrelevant. POPLA do not judge on GDPR compliance at all.

You'd be distracting POPLA from the obvious winning point if you put all that. Also, you are not allowed to introduce new arguments at this stage anyway.

Honestly this summary was far punchier and on point:

Signage
- Operator has provided the detailed map showing location of signs and verified that there are no signs visible from the pump forecourt next to the pumps.They are only in segregated parking.

- I believe they have demonstrated that signs outside of the segregated parking area are not lit. Otherwise, lots of lovely photo's taken in broad daylight, or the lit signs that were nowhere near the parking area.

3) Contract: Refused to provide full contract as it contains "commercially sensitive information." They appear to have provided an Appendix, albeit signed.

4) ECP have provided images showing a license plate and shadows of a car - nothing that proves where that image was taken (no background recognizable as the garage in question).

5) ECP state "All vehicle registration numbers are then matched
against the data produced by the various means of paying for parking and a list of registration numbers where no payment has been made or where the motorist has stayed longer than the period paid is produced."

There was no means of paying for parking provided!

ToddlingtonMass

I too need to contact Shell: can you please let me know what email address you used or how you contacted them?


Cheers.